A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O d6 I I i i CTX GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr other than that it was likely about Epstein 2s wish to have the Department review the case.152 On November Starr requested by letter a meeting with Fisher In his letter Starr argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under U.S.C as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case On the same day Lefkowitz emailed Sloman complaining about the USAO 2s plan to notify victims about the provision and alerting Sloman that Epstein 2s counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney General address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section component of the NPA After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter Sloman forwarded it to Villafana asking herto prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the provision evolved Villafana responded that she was 223going through all of the ways in which they have tried to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict In Washington D.C Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan asking for his thoughts on defense counsel 2s arguments At the same time at Lourie 2s request Villafana sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was 223not thrilled about the NPA described Epstein 2s conduct as unusually 223egregious particularly because of its serial nature and observed that the NPA was 223pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims He opined however that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA 223other than to say that she agrees with it During her OPR interview Fisher did not recall reading Starr 2s letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan but believed the comment about her 223agreeing with it referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein which she believed was appropriate She told OPR however that she 223played no role in the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report Villafana planned to notify the victims about the NPA and its provision as well as about state plea hearing and she provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments On November Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims Lefkowitz asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant Attorney General Fisher which he anticipated would take place the following week Internal emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place and OPR found no evidence that it did Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter directing him to raise his concerns about victim notification with Villafana or Sloman Acosta also addressed Epstein 2s evident efforts to stop the NPA from being enforced In a short email to Fisher the next day Lourie reported simply was very nice Kept me on the phone for a half hour talking about Pepperdine referring to the law school where Starr served as Dean CA/Aronberg-0563 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr other than that it was likely about Epsteins wish to have the Department review the case On November Starr requested by letter a meeting with Fisher In his letter Starr argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under U.S.C as part of a state-based resolution ofa criminal case On the same day Lefkowitz emailed Sloman complaining about the USAOs plan to notify victims about the provision and alerting Sloman that Epsteins counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney General to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section component of the NP A After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter Sloman forwarded it to Villafana asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the provision evolved Villafana responded that she was going through all of the ways in which they have tried to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict In Washington D.C Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan asking for his thoughts on defense counsels arguments At the same time at Louries request Villafana sent the NP A and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was not thrilled about the NPA described Epsteins conduct as unusually egregious particularly because of its serial nature and observed that the NPA was pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims He opined however that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NP A other than to say that she agrees with it During her OPR interview Fisher did not recall reading Starrs letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan but believed the comment about her agreeing with it referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein which she believed was appropriate She told OPR however that she played no role in the NP A and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed As set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report Villafana planned to notify the victims about the NP A and its provision as well as about the state plea hearing and she provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments On November Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims Lefkowitz asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant Attorney General Fisher which he anticipated would take place the following week Internal emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place and OPR found no evidence that it did Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter directing him to raise his concerns about victim notification with Villafana or Sloman Acosta also addressed Epsteins evident efforts to stop the NPA from being enforced In a short email to Fisher the next day Lourie reported simply He was very nice Kept me on the phone for al half hour talking about Pepperdine referring to the law school where Starr served as Dean CA/Aronberg-0563 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH.ABRUZZO CLERK PM Since the signing of the September 24th agreement more than two months ago it has become clear that several attorneys oh your legal team are dissatisfied with that result You Professor Dershowitz former Solicitor General Starr former United States Attorney Lewis Ms Sanchez and Messrs Black Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement The defense team however after extensive negotiation chose to adopt the Agreement Since then counsel have objected to several steps taken by the U.S Attorney 2s Office to effectuate the terms of the Agreement in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the Agreement It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to enter a plea against his wishes Your client has the right to proceed to trial If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement or believes that it is unlawful or unfair we stand ready to unwind the Agreement In a separate seven-page letter to Starr with Villafana 2s and Sloman 2s input Acosta responded to the substance of Starr 2s November letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta rather than her office responded to the letter but she conjectured that 223probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since the Criminal Division wasn 2t going to respond In his seven-page letter sent to Starr on December Acosta wrote The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr Epstein responds to Mr Epstein 2s desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability Under this Agreement this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida provided Mr Epstein satisfies three general federal interests that Mr Epstein plead guilty to a 223registerable offense that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment and that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO 2s intent was place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less Acosta documented the USAO 2s understanding of the operation of the NPA 2s The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr 2s letter raised issues that had not been previously raised with the USAO and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance CA/Aronberg-0564 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Since the signing of the September 24th agreement more than two months ago it has become clear that several attorneys oh your legal team are dissatisfied with that result You Professor Dershowitz former Solicitor General Starr former United States Attorney Lewis Ms Sanchez and Messrs Black Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement The defense team however after extensive negotiation chose to adopt the Agreement Since then counsel have objected to several steps taken by the U.S Attorneys Office to effectuate the terms of the Agreement in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the Agreement It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to enter a plea against his wishes Your client has the right to proceed to trial If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement or believes that it is unlawful or unfair we stand ready to unwind the Agreement In a separate seven-page letter to Starr with Villafafias and Slomans input Acosta responded to the substance of Starrs November letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta rather than her office responded to the letter but she conjectured that probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since the Criminal Division wasnt going to respond In his seven-page letter sent to Starr on December Acosta wrote The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr Epstein responds to Mr Epsteins desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability Under this Agreement this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida provided Mr Epstein satisfies three general federal interests that Mr Epstein plead guilty to a registerable offense that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment and that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO intent was to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less Acosta documented the USAOs understanding of the operation of the NP As The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starrs letter raised issues that had not been previously raised with the USAO and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance CA/Aronberg-0564 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM provision recounted the history of NPA negotiations and described the post-signing efforts by Epstein 2s counsel to challenge portions of the NPA Acosta 2s letter concluded Although it happens rarely I do not mind this Office 2s decision being appealed to Washington and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions Indeed although I am confident in our prosecutors evidence and legal analysis I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in CEOS to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their charges I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that been raised and in fact resolved in your client 2s favor I am troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement The AUSAs who have-364 been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client That said there must be closure on this matter Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement even after Mr Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult if not impossible to unwind I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes Your client has the right to proceed to trial Although time is of the essence I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday to provide you with time to review these options with your client We expect a written decision by December at p.m indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm or to unwind the Agreement Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as 223inviting Departmental review but he believed the Department had the 223right to address Epstein 2s concerns Moreover the USAO 2s only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was in fact in breach Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein 2s intent to abide by the agreement making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult In fact the day after receiving Acosta 2s letter Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta with copies to Sloman and Assitant Attorney General Fisher that CA/Aronberg-0565 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM provision recounted the history of NP A negotiations and described the post-signing efforts by Epsteins counsel to challenge portions of the NPA Acostas letter concluded Although it happens rarely I do not mind this Offices decision being appealed to Washington and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions Indeed although I am confident in our prosecutors evidence and legal analysis I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in CEOS to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their charges I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised and in fact resolved in your clients favor I am troubled likewise by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client That said there must be closure on this matter Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement even after Mr Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult if not impossible to unwind I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes Your client has the right to proceed to trial Although time is of the essence I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday to provide you with time to review these options with your client We expect a written decision by December at p.m indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm or to unwind the Agreement Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as inviting Departmental review but he believed the Department had the right to address Epsteins concerns Moreover the USAOs only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was in fact in breach Acosta not that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epsteins intent to abide by the agreement making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult In fact the day after receiving Acostas letter Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta with copies to Sloman and Assitant Attorney General Fisher that CA/Aronberg-0565 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the defense 223first and foremost reaffirmed the NPA and that Epstein 223has no intention of unwinding the agreement On December 227the deadline set by Acosta in his December letter to Starr the defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence 223Affirmation of the NPA and its addendum signed by Epstein.154 Despite Affirming the NPA Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafana of Improper Conduct December and Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and 223Ethics Opinions Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafana On the same day that the defense team sent Epstein 2s 223Affirmation to the USAO Starr and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two 223independent ethics opinions 227one authored by prominent criminal defense attorney and former U.S Attorney Joe Whitley which assessed purported improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein and the other by a prominent retired federal judge and former U.S Attorney arguing against the NPA 2s use of the civil damages recovery provision under U.S.C a proxy for traditional criminal restitution Days later on December Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the 223background and conduct of the investigation These submissions repeated arguments previously raised by the defense but also asserted new issues In one submission pages long Lefkowitz addressed the 223improper involvement of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized Villafana for a number of alleged improprieties including having engaged in 223unprecedented federal overreaching by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally 223insisting that the State Attorney 2s Office 223charge Mr Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate and requiring that Epstein plead guilty to a registrable offense a 223harsh condition that was 223unwarranted Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that was 223tainted by the lead PBPD Detective 2s misrepresentation of key facts in affidavits and interview summaries leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed information that 223compromised the federal investigation Finally Lefkowitz criticized federal involvement in the state plea process as a violation of 223the tenets of the Petite Policy In a second 13-page submission Lefkowitz reiterated Epstein 2s complaints about the component of the NPA arguing among other things that federal prosecutors 223should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements The Affirmation read Jeffrey Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October Villafana sent Lefkowitz a five-page letter responding to the accusations made against her personally CA/Aronberg-0566 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the defense first and foremost reaffirmed the NP A and that Epstein has no intention of unwinding the agreement On December deadline set by Acosta in his December letter to Starr the defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence Affirmation of the NPA and its addendum signed by Epstein Despite Affirming the NPA Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafana of Improper Conduct December and Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and Ethics Opinions Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafana On the same day that the defense team sent Epsteins Affirmation to the USAO Starr and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two independent ethics opinions"-one authored by prominent criminal defense attorney and former U.S Attorney Joe Whitley which assessed purported improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein and the other by a prominent retired federal judge and former U.S Attorney arguing against the NPAs use of the civil damages recovery provision under U.S.C as a proxy for traditional criminal restitution Days later on December Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NP A and to the background and conduct of the investigation These submissions repeated arguments previously raised by the defense but also asserted new issues In one submission pages long Lefkowitz addressed the improper involvement of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized Villafana for a number of alleged improprieties including having engaged in unprecedented federal overreaching by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally insisting that the State Attorneys Office charge Mr Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate and requiring that Epstein plead guilty to a registrable offense a harsh condition that was unwarranted Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that was tainted by the lead PBPD Detectives misrepresentation of key facts in affidavits and interview summaries leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed information that compromised the federal investigation Finally Lefkowitz criticized federal involvement in the state plea process as a violation of"the tenets of the Petite Policy In a second 13-page submission Lefkowitz reiterated Epsteins complaints about the component of the NPA arguing among other things that federal prosecutors should not be in the business of helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements The Affinnation read I Jeffrey Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October Villafana sent Lefkowitz a five-page letter responding to the accusations made against her personally CA/Aronberg-0566 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions Lefkowitz added that Epstein 223unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind the NPA As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel After reviewing Starr 2s and Lefkowitz 2s letters Sloman notified Villafana that light of the recent Kirkland Ellis correspondence he had asked Robert Senior who had succeeded Menchel as Chief of the USAO 2s Criminal Division to review de novo the evidence underlying the proposed revised indictment and Sloman asked Villafana to provide Senior with all the state and FBI investigative materials In the meantime Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz 2s December submissions.156 The meeting took place in Miami on December The defense team included Starr Dershowitz Lefcourt and Boston attorney Martin Weinberg The USAO side included Acosta Sloman Villafana and another senior AUSA with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present In addition to previously raised arguments during this meeting Epstein 2s attorneys raised a new argument 227that the state charge to which Epstein had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO 2s Actions Shortly after the December meeting Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly the defense team may 223have no alternative but to seek review in Washington Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense team might make an appeal to her and he asked her to grant such a request for review and in fact review this case in an expedited manner in order to preserve the January 4th plea date Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter with numerous previously submitted defense submissions reviewing issues discussed at the meeting and advising that Epstein sought a 223prompt independent expedited review of the evidence by 223you or someone you trust The letter reiterated Epstein 2s position that his conduct not amount to a registrable offense under state law or a violation of federal law and with respect to the NPA 2s provision that it was 223improper to require Epstein to pay damages individuals who do nothing but simply assert a claim under the statute As Assistant Attorney General Fisher 2s Chief of Staff Lourie liad informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr would speak to Acosta to 223resolve thef fairly narrow issues raised in Starr 2s correspondence with Acosta Acosta had the Starrand Lefkowitz submissions of December forwarded to Fisher CA/Aronberg-0567 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions Lefkowitz added that Epstein unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind the NPA As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel After reviewing Starrs and Lefkowitzs letters Sloman notified Villafana that in light of the recent Kirkland Ellis correspondence he had asked Robert Senior who had succeeded Menchel as Chief of the USA Os Criminal Division to review de nova the evidence underlying the proposed revised indictment and Sloman asked Villafana to provide Senior with all the state and FBI investigative materials In the meantime Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitzs December submissions The meeting took place in Miami on December The defense team included Starr Dershowitz Lefcourt and Boston attorney Martin Weinberg The USAO side included Acosta Sloman Villafana and another senior AUSA with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present In addition to previously raised arguments during this meeting Epsteins attorneys raised a new argument-that the state charge to which Epstein had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USA Os Actions Shortly after the December meeting Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly the defense team may have no alternative but to seek review in Washington Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense team might make an appeal to her and he asked her to grant such a request for review and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner in order to preserve the January 4th plea date Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter with numerous previously submitted defense submissions reviewing issues discussed at the meeting and advising that Epstein sought a prompt independent expedited review of the evidence by you or someone you trust The letter reiterated Epsteins position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under state law or a violation offederal law and with respect to the NPAs provision that it was improper to require Epstein to pay damages to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a claim under the statute As Assistant Attorney General Fishers Chief of Staff Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr would speak to Acosta lo resolve then fairly narrow issues raised in Starrs correspondence with Acosta Acosta had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December forwarded to Fisher CA/Aronberg-0567 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA Language concerning Monetary Damages but the Defense Does Not Accept It Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel 2s continuing concern about the provision He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA 2s implementation section Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he not have 223any insight to offer On December after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve 223our disagreements over interpretation by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to with a provision that would read Any person who while a minor was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title United States Code Section will have the same rights to proceed under Section as she would have had if Mr Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense For purposes of implementing this paragraph the United States shall provide Mr Epstein 2s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr Epstein Any judicial authority interpreting this provision including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays.157 Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later suggesting that Acosta 2s proposal raised 223several troubling questions and that 223the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement In a follow-up letter to Acosta to address the USAO 2s concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea Lefkowitz asserted that 223any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties and that defense counsel had all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel he was 223increasingly frustrated by Epstein 2s desire to take an hour appeal to the Department so soon before the As described in detail in Chapter Three Acosta 2s December letter also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the provision and asserting that the provision was 223inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable In the end the defense team rejected Acosta 2s December NPA modification letter CA/Aronberg-0568 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA Language concerning Monetary Damages but the Defense Does Not Accept It Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsels continuing concern about the provision He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPAs implementation section Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have any insight to offer On December after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve our disagreements over interpretation by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to with a provision that would read Any person who while a minor was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title United States Code Section will have the same rights to proceed under Section as she would have had if Mr Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense For purposes of implementing this paragraph the United States shall provide Mr Epsteins attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr Epstein Any judicial authority interpreting this provision including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors urging to declare the NP A breached by the defense delays Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later suggesting that Acostas proposal raised several troubling questions and that the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement In a follow-up letter to Acosta to address the USAOs concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea Lefkowitz asserted that any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties and that defense counsel had at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel he was increasingly frustrated by Epsteins desire to take an 11th hour appeal to the Department so soon before the As described in detail in Chapter Three Acostas December le lier also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NP A and the state plea After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the provision and asserting that the provision was inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable In the end the defense team rejected Acostas December NP A modification letter CNAronberg-0568 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM scheduled January plea hearing As soon became apparent Acosta was unable to achieve an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by January and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled On January Sloman spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek who confirmed that the change of plea hearing had been postponed In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafana Sloman said that Epstein 2s local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts 223did not fit the proposed state charge and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that assessment.159 The next day Villafana sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article reporting that Epstein 2s state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal authorities would drop their investigation of him Acosta sent to Sloman and Villafana an email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day Lefkowitz may have made a mistake months ago Belohlavek told us solicitation is not registrable It turns out that the actual offense charged is January Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct On January Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney Sanchez at her request According to meeting notes made by Sloman among other things Sanchez alleged that the USAO 2s media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national news reporter and Sanchez 223suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein After Acosta excused himself to attend another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with Sanchez 223without a witness present she left Later that day Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Starr Lefkowitz and Sanchez who expressed concern about the 223leak to the news media reiterated their objections to the NPA and pressed for the 223watered-down resolution which they specified would mean allowing Epstein to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement avoid serving time in jail and not register as a sexual offender A note in the margin of Sloman 2s handwritten notes of the conversation reads 2re back to where we started in September That evening Villafana expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was affecting the USAO 2s ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country making contact with 223potential sources of information in the Virgin Islands and re-initiating proceedings to obtain Epstein 2s computers In the meantime USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a 223soup to nuts review of the Epstein investigation reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence Villafana had compiled He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review but opined Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident but she noted that tire PBPD report did set forth facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor Although the meeting Lefkowitz had with Lourie Villafana Krischer and Belohlavek to discuss the state resolution was only four months prior not six Lefkowitz 2s reference was likely to the September meeting CA/Aronberg-0569 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM scheduled January plea hearing As soon became apparent Acosta Vas unable to achieve an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by January and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled On January Sloman spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek who confirmed that the change of plea hearing had beea postponed In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafana Sloman said that Epsteins local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts did not fit the proposed state charge and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that assessment The next day Villafana sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article reporting that Epsteins state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal authorities would drop their investigation of him Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafana an email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day I Lefkowitz may have made a mistake months ago Belohlavek told us solicitation is not registrable It turns out that the actual offense charged is January Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct On January Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney Sanchez at her request According to meeting notes made by Sloman among other things Sanchez alleged that the USA Os media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national news reporter and Sanchez suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein After Acosta excused himself to attend another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with Sanchez without a witness present she left Later that day Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Starr Lefkowitz and Sanchez who expressed concern about the leak to the news media reiterated their objections to the NP A and pressed for the watered-down resolution which they specified would mean allowing Epstein to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement avoid serving time in jail and not register as a sexual offender A note in the margin of Slomans handwritten notes of the conversation reads Were back to where we started in September That evening Villafana expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was affecting the USAOs ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country making contact with potential sources of information in the Virgin Islands and re-initiating proceedings to obtain Epsteins computers In the meantime USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a soup to nuts review of the Epstein investigation reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence Villafana had compiled He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review but opined Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident but she noted that the PBPD report did set forth facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor Although the meeting Lefkowitz had with Lourie Villafana Krischer and Belohlavek to discuss the state resolution was only four months prior not six Lefkowitzs reference was likely to the September meeting CA Aronberg-0569 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM that it was to establish whether if the plea fell apart he as Chief would agree 223that we can go forward with the charges He did recall being concerned after completing the review that did not have a lot of victims lined up and ready to testify and that some victims might 223not be favorable for us Nevertheless he concluded that the proposed charges were sound and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence Notwithstanding Senior 2s favorable review Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz that they 223appreciate that the defense wanted a 223fresh face to conduct a review and noted that the Criminal Chief had not undertaken the 223in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the defense They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to 223come on board and that CEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having national perspective to conduct a fresh review in light of the defense submissions Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney who Villafana understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not 223consummate the NPA The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case materials and to meet with Villafana to discuss the case and interview some of the victims After one such meeting Villafana wrote to Acosta and Sloman We just finished interviewing three of the girls I wish you could have been there to see how much this has affected them One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice within a minute span She regained her composure enough to continue a short time but she said that she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview The second girl told us that she was very upset about the month deal she had read about in the paper She said that months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them.161 The CEOS Trial Attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases She told OPR that in her view the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges for a prosecution some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages and thus could have been charged as accomplices some had 223drug histories and things like that some could appear to have been 223complicit and there was no evidence of physical violence against the victims She did not regard Villafana added have four more girls coming in tomorrow Can I persuade you to attend CA/Aronberg-0570 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM that it was to establish whether if the plea fell apart he as Chief would agree that we can go forward with the charges He did recall being concerned after completing the review that we did not have a lot of victims lined up and ready to testify and that some victims might not be favorable for us Nevertheless he concluded that the proposed charges were sound and he told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence Notwithstanding Seniors favorable review Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz that they appreciated that the defense wanted a fresh face to conduct a review and noted that the Criminal Chief had not undertaken the in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the defense They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to come on board and that CEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having a national perspective to conduct a fresh review in light of the defense submissions Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney who Villafana understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not consummate the NP A The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case materials and to meet with Villafana to discuss the case and interview some of the victims After one such meeting Villafana wrote to Acosta and Sloman We just finished interviewing three of the girls I wish you could have been there to see how much this has affected them One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice within a minute span She regained her composure enough to continue a short time but she said that she was having nightmares abo Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview The second girl told us that she was very upset about the month deal she had read about in the paper She said that months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them The CEOS Trial Attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases She told OPR that in her view the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges for a prosecution some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages and thus could have been charged as accomplices some had drug histories and things like that some could appear to have been complicit and there was no evidence of physical violence against the victims She did not regard Villafana added We have four more girls coining in tomorrow Can I persuade you to attend CA/Aronberg-0570 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM these victim issues as insurmountable but based on these alone the CEOS Trial Attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a 223crap shoot In addition she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties although she believed these difficulties could be overcome Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims however 223things just stopped when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein 2s defense team IX FEBRUARY JUNE THE DEPARTMENT 2S REVIEW Epstein 2s defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction specific terms in the NPA and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel The Department however only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions.162 Nonetheless the process took several months as the defense appealed first to CEOS and the Department 2s Criminal Division and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November or in those offices reviews which continued through June On February USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written notification of the USAO 2s 223ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter involving Epstein and others 223that may result in charges of violations of U.S.C USAM required a U.S Attorney to notify the Civil Rights Division in writing the outset of a criminal investigation that may implicate federal criminal civil rights statutes and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses before a grand jury The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation the factual allegations to be investigated the statutes which may liavc been violated the U.S Attorney 2s assessment of the significance of the case whether Hie case was of 223national interest and the U.S Attorney 2s proposed staffing of the matter Villafana became aware of this requirement in late February and she prepared a written notification that was edited by Sloman who discussed it with Acosta After briefly summarizing the facts Senior advised The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title United States Code Sections and The investigation of the case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts but we see this case as similar to oilier 223child prostitution cases charged by our office and not a matter of 223national interest as defined by the U.S Attorney 2s Manual In the notification Senior stated that CEOS 223has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter he anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel and we determine that the case should be charged a copy of the charging document will be forwarded to you OPR did not locate a response from the Civil Rights Division to the notification CA/Aronberg-0571 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM these victim issues as insurmountable but based on these alone the CEOS Trial Attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a crap shoot In addition she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties although she believed these difficulties could be overcome Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims however things just stopped when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epsteins defense team IX FEBRUARY JUNE THE DEPARTMENTS REVIEW Epsteins defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction specific terms in the NPA and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel The Department however only reviewed the issue offederal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NP A or any specific provisions Nonetheless the process took several months as the defense appealed first to CEOS and the Departments Criminal Division and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November or in those offices reviews which continued through June On February USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written notification of the USAOs ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter im,olving Epstein and others that may result in charges of violations of U.S.C USAM required a U.S Attorney to notify the Civil Rights Division in writing at the outset of a criminal investigation that may implicate federal criminal civil rights statutes and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses before a grand jury The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation U1c factual allegations to be investigated the statutes which may have been violated U1e U.S Allorncys assessment of the significance of the case whcU1er U1c case was of national interest and U1e U.S Attorneys proposed staffing of the mailer Villafafia became aware of this requirement in late February and she prepared a written notification U1a1 was edited by Sloman who discussed it wiU1 Acosta After briefly sununarizing the facts Senior advised The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title United States Code Sections and The imestigation of U1e case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts but we see this case as similar to 0U1er child prostitution cases charged by our office and not a mailer of national interest as defined by the U.S Attorneys Manual In U1e notification Senior stated that CEOS has been involved and is currently reviewing U1e 1natter he anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department perso1mel and filf we detennine that the case should be charged a copy of the charging docwnenl will be forwarded to you OPR did not locate a response from U1e Civil Rights Division to the notification CA/Aronberg-0571 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Criminal Division Office of the Deputy Attorney General AtjEjJilA E3 243!52iXiiSui Andrew lourie gQiOdj jyair yav E3vu7 liQlbBal iS A February May Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division On February soon after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with victims Oosterbaan spoke with Lefkowitz about CEOS 2s role In a subsequent email to Villafana Sloman and Senior Oosterbaan explained I told Lefkowitz that all I want to do is help the process move forward and if they think we best help theprocess by taking a fresh and obj ecti ve look at the case and their arguments then that is what I want to do I told him that if that 2s What theywant if that is what will help the process to move forward then I don 2t think it 2s advisable for GEOS to partner with the US AO on the case He wants to think about that and probably talk to his co-counsel about CA/Aronberg-0572 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Criminal Division Otfice of the Deputy Attorney General A February May Review by CEOS and theCrhninal Divis.ion On Febnmry soon after the CEOS Trjal Attorney 1et witli vi_c:tims qsterbii sp.oke with Lefkowitz about CEOS role In a subsequent email to Villafana Sloman and Senior Oosterbaa:n explained CA Aronberg-0572 I told Lefkowitz that all want to do is help the process move forwa,rd and if tl;ieythiQk we best help the process by taking_ a_ fresh artd objective look anhe case and their argurr ents then tha:t is What I want todo I told himthat ifthaf whatthey 267want if that is what will help the process to move forward then I dont think 267its advisablefor GEOS to partnerwith_the USAO-on the case He wants to think about that anct probably ta,lk tp co counsel ab9qt FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function and he said he 2d get back to me later today Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEOS 2s role to review only and Acosta asked him to 223make sure the defense is okay with that to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS 2s involvement in the review Oosterbaan explained to OPR that 223the defense kept bringing up new arguments and new problems and the USAO was saying look if we 2re going to do this if you 2ve got a problem with it tell us now By February Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan who informed Sloman that the CEOS role should be 223review only Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker informed of the defense team contacts Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was 223ready to proceed immediately with a review of the matter Sloman advised Lefkowitz that the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr Epstein this Office will close its investigation but that 223should CEOS disagree with Mr Epstein 2s position Mr Epstein shall have one week to abide by the NPA Sloman forwarded this email to Villafana who responded 223Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through And after we have discovered new girls The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein 2s requests for the Department 2s involvement On February Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan on March Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and 223made it clear that the defense team would want an audience with her if CEOS decidfed to support the prosecution On March Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express 223concern about Oosterbaan 2s participation in the case and indicated that 223they may ask for more senior involvement Acosta 223informed them that they certainly had the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate and that whatever process would be given them was up to whomever they asked The next day Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter As you have suggested we will initiate that review process with Drew Oosterbaan and engage in a discussion with him about all of the facts and circumstances as well as the legal and policy issues associated with this case However due to our misgivings engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself we may well find it necessary to The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January but never got scheduled for tliat time On February Sloman informed Lefkowitz tliat the USAO was 223very concerned about additional delays in the Departmental review process but would agree to a short extension of the March deadline provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review CA/Aronberg-0573 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a review function and he said hed get back to me later today Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to limit CEOSs role to review only and Acosta asked him to make sure the defense is okay with that to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOSs involvement in the review Oosterbaan explained to OPR that the defense kept bringing up new arguments and new problems and the USAO was saying look if were going to do this if youve got a problem with it tell us now By February Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan who informed Sloman that the CEOS role should be review only Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker informed of the defense team contacts Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was ready to proceed immediately with a review of the matter Sloman advised Lefkowitz that in the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr Epstein this Office will close its investigation but that should CEOS disagree with Mr Epsteins position Mr Epstein shall have one week to abide by the NPA Sloman forwarded this email to Villafana who responded Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has put us through And after we have discovered new girls The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epsteins requests for the Departments involvement On February Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with Oosterbaan on March Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and made it clear that the defense team would want an audience with her if CEOS decid ed to support the prosecution On March Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express concern about Oosterbaans participation in the case and indicated that they may ask for more senior involvement Acosta informed them that they certainly had the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate and that whatever process would be given them was up to whomever they asked The next day Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter As you have suggested we will initi.ate that review process with Drew Oosterbaan and engage in a discussion with him about all of the facts and circumstances as well as the legal and policy issues associated with this case However due to our misgivings engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute this case himself we may well find it necessary to The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January but never got scheduled for that time On February Sloman infonned Lefkowitz Uiat U1e USAO was very concerned about additional delays in the Departmental review process but would agree lo a short extension of the March deadline to provide CEOS time to engage in a thorough review CA/Aronberg-0573 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ Ken Starr and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to our seeking appellate review within DOJ Starr Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg attended the March meeting as well as the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS who had joined the Epstein defense team Oosterbaan Mandelker and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department The current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a 223listening session with Starr doing most of the presentation Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled 223some back and forth because the defense team was saying 223some outrageous things Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief who had been an aggressive advocate for child exploitation prosecutions was supporting the defense position although according to the CEOS Deputy Chief the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a 223weak pitch that was not effective After the meeting Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal Division One submission provided a lengthy list of US AO actions that 223have caused us serious concern including the following 223Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with state authorities the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that 223had no connection to the conduct at issue the nomination an individual closely associated with one of the Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case to serve as the victims attorney representative the 223insistence on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to make sworn statements at Epstein 2s sentencing and the purported existence of a 223relationship between Sloman and a law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits against Epstein.165 Titis complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafana 2s understanding that the defense objected to USAO conununications with state authorities In November Sloman noted to Lefkowitz 223Your recent correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney 2s Office raises concern In a March email reporting to CEOS about the state case Villafana noted that she did not know whether a state 223misdemeanor deal was back on the table because Ilie defense demanded that we have no contact with the State Attorney 2s Office so I haven 2t spoken with the Assistant State Attorney in over6 months Villafana later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that tire USAO had not been communicating with him she explained to Krischer Uiat was the defense who were blocking the channels of conununication In approximately Sloman briefly left the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a Miami attorney whose practice specialized in plaintiffs sexual abuse claims During the attorney CA/Aronberg-0574 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ Ken Starr and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to our seeking appellate review within DOJ Starr Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg attended the March meeting as well as the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS who had joined the Epstein defense team Oosterbaan Mandelker and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department The current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a listening session with Starr doing most of the presentation Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled some back and forth because the defense team was saying some outrageous things Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief who had been an aggressive advocate for child exploitation prosecutions was supporting the defense position although according to the CEOS Deputy Chief the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a weak pitch that was not effective After the meeting Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal Division One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that have caused us serious concern including the following Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any communication with state authorities the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that had no connection to the conduct at issue the nomination of an individual closely associated with one of the Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case to serve as the victims attorney representative the insistence on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to make sworn statements at Epsteins sentencing and the purported existence of a relationship between Sloman and a law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits against Epstein This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafafias w1derstanding that the defense objected to USAO conununications with the state authorities In November Sloman noted to Lefkowitz Your recent correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from conununicating with U1e State Attorneys Office raises concern In a March email reporting to CEOS about the state case Villafana noted that she did not know whether a state misdemeanor deal fwasl back on the table because U1e defense demanded that we have no contact with the State Attorneys Office so I havent spoken with the Assistant State Attorneyl in over6 months Villafana later reported to Acosta and Sloman U1at when Krischer complained to her U1at U1e USAO 1ad not been conununicating with him she explained to Krischer U1at it was the defense who were blocking U1e channels of conununication In approxin1ately Sloman briefly left the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a Miami attorney whose practice specialized in plaintiffs sexual abuse claims During the attorney CA/Aronberg-057 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM In another letter Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media and accused Sloman and Villafana of 223encouraging civil litigation against Epstein Finally in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day reiterated the defense team 2s various complaints and asked her to meet with him Lefkowitz and Whitley Meanwhile Oosterbaan 2s Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz and over the course of several weeks it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher as well as the Criminal Division 2s Appellate Section regarding certain legal issues and Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the Petite policy Oosterbaan told OPR that notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints CEOS 2s review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein Oosterbaan 2s letter sent to Lefkowitz on May notified the defense team that CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations 223would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests The letter specified that CEOS 2s review addressed the 223narrow question of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter CEOS had concluded that 223federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate and that Acosta 223could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case On May Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta 223not shunt me off to one of your staff Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting CEOS 2s letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a 223novel application of relevant federal statutes;166 CEOS 2s conclusion that federal prosecution would not be abuse of discretion was 223hardly an endorsement of the case;167 CEOS did not address Epstein 2s prosecutorial misconduct allegations and 223critical new evidence in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed 223that represented Epstein victims The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman 2s past association with the attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims potential civil lawsuits against Epstein Oosterbaan 2s letter stated Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute This statement referred to a defense argument based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to 223adult prostitution where no force fraud or coercion was used Oosterbaan slated that 223the Department 2s efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of cliildren 227even if wholly local 227and the exploitation of adults through force fraud or coercion He then observed that the fact 223that a prosecution of Mr Epstein might not look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive Oosterbaan began Iris letter however by making it clear that CEOS had considered 223the narrow question as to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S Attorney 2s Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr Epstein CA/Aronberg-0575 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM In another letter Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed information about the case to the media and accused Sloman and Villafana of encouraging civil litigation against Epstein Finally in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day reiterated the defense teams various complaints and asked her to meet with him Lefkowitz and Whitley Meanwhile Oosterbaans Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan to Lefkowitz and over the course of several weeks it was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher as well as the Criminal Divisions Appellate Section regarding certain legal issues and Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the Petite policy Oosterbaan told OPR that notwithstanding the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints CEOSs review was limited to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein Oosterbaans letter sent to Lefkowitz on May notified the defense team that CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal criminal violations would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests The letter specified that CEOS review addressed the narrow question of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation or review the terms of the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations The letter stated that based on its examination of the material relevant to its limited review of the matter CEOS had concluded that federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate and that Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case On May Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically asked that Acosta not shunt me off to one of your staff Lefkowitz made several points in support of the request for a meeting CEO Ss letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a novel application of relevant federal statutes CEOSs conclusion that federal prosecution would not be an abuse of discretion was hardly an endorsement of the case CEOS did not address Epsteins prosecutorial misconduct allegations and critical new evidence in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed that represented Epstein victims The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Slomans past association with the attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims potential civil lawsuits against Epstein Oosterbaans Leiter stated Mr Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute This statement referred to a defense argument based on a prior Departmental ex-pression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to adult prostitution where no force fraud or coercion was used Oosterbaan stated that tl1e Departments efforts are properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children"-even if wholly local-and the exploitation of adults through force fraud or coercion He then observed that the fact tl1at a prosecution of Mr Epstein might not look precisely like tl1e cases that came before it is not dispositive Oosterbaan began his letter however by making it clear that CEOS l1ad considered the narrow question as to whether there is a legiti1mte basis for the U.S Attorneys Office lo proceed with a federal prosecution of Mr Epstein CA Aron be FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case Lefkowitz alluded to the possibility of seeking further-267.6 review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General should the defense be unable to 223resolve this matter directly with Acosta Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate with the 223trial team That same day Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the case be made to Villafana or her immediate supervisor and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel 2s email or calls Sloman noted that the US AO had 223bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider Epstein 2s objections but 223these objections have finally been exhausted Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on June May June Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Also on May Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip asking for review the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter In the letter they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed very limited review of the Epstein case but contended that 223full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was 223unwarranted and that 223the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the NPA are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor 2s responsibilities They followed up with a second letter on May in which they asserted 223the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and 223the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal laws to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton required Departmental review On this latter point they argued that Epstein 223entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton and that there was 223little doubt that the USAO 223never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr Epstein were just another 221John This was the first defense submission mentioning Epstein 2s connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due to politics In the May letter to the Deputy Attorney General Stan and Whitley used the existing June deadline for the entry of Epstein 2s guilty plea to argue that it made the need for review of the case 223all the more exigent John Roth a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General who was handling the matter instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline and on May Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General 2s office.170 Meanwhile the Criminal Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure defendants are permitted to depose victims and Epstein 2s counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims including victims who were not part of tire state prosecution to learn information about the federal investigation In addition to having sewed as U.S Attorney in two different districts Whitley had sewed as Acting Associate Attorney General the Department 2s third-highest position On May Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami forunrelated events and had lunchat the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter was discussed CA/Aronberg-0576 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case Lefkowitz alluded to the possibility of seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General should the defense be unable to resolve this matter directly with Acosta Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate with the trial team That same day Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the case be made to Villafana or her immediate supervisor and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to counsels email or calls Sloman noted that the USAO had bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider Epsteins objections but these objections have finally been exhausted Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate the NP A unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on June May June Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Also on May Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip asking for review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter In the letter they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed a very limited review of the Epstein case but contended that full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of the Justice Department They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was unwarranted and that the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the NP A are beyond any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutors responsibilities They followed up with a second letter on May in which they asserted the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws and the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension offederal laws to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton required Departmental review On this latter point they argued that Epstein entered the public arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton and that there was little doubt that the USAO never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case if Mr Epstein were just another John This was the first defense submission mentioning Epsteins connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due to politics In the May letter to the Deputy Attorney General Starr and Whitley used the existing June deadline for the entry of Epsteins guilty plea to argue that it made the need for review of the case all the more exigent John Roth a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General who was handling the matter instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline and on May Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney Generals office Meanwhile the Criminal Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure defendants are permitted to depose victims and Epsteins counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims including victims who were not part of the state prosecution to learn infonnation about the federal investigation In addition to having se1ved as U.S Attorney in two different districts Whitley had served as Acting Associate Attorney General tl1e Departments tllird-highest position On May Attorney General Mukasey was inMianli for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers OPR found no indication tl1at the Epstein matter was discussed CA/Aronberg-0576 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions describing them as enormous amount of material regarding the Epstein matter On June Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epstein 2s counsel culminating in the NPA and addressing Epstein 2s claims of professional misconduct Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum one of the proposed charging documents and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta 2s December letter to Sanchez As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General State Attorney Krischer mentioned to the USAO 2s West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein 2s local defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein 2s case that would involve a 90-day jail term but Krischer provided no further information Upon learning of this Villafana wrote to her immediate supervisor 223Please tell me that you are joking Maybe we should throw him Epstein a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him Villafana and her immediate supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein 2s local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA or will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr 2s letter Following the office 2s standard protocol Starr 2s letter was handled by John Roth an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the USAO Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation interview witnesses or meet with Epstein 2s counsel and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein 2s attorneys and by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General 2s office as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office and that CEOS furnished to him Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues as well as with the Deputy Attorney General who also reviewed the submissions Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA and because he believed the NPA was a 223dead letter he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc On the other hand Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement Apart from addressing Epstein 2s federalism arguments however Deputy Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the 223mission of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA 2s terms or determine whether the NPA reached the 223right balance between state and federal punishment He told OPR heard an appeal Epstein wanted a meeting to argue for relief We didn 2t give him a meeting and we didn 2t give him any relief Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epstein 2s arguments 223felt that it was a sympathetic appeal In particular he told OPR that defense counsel 2s argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was 223ludicrous and the assertion that the USAO 2s investigation of Epstein was politically motivated 223just seemed unseri ous Villafana urged Sloman 223Someone really needs to talk to Barry CA/Aronberg-0577 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions describing them as an enormous amount of material regarding the Epstein matter On June Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epsteins counsel culminating in the NPA and addressing Epsteins claims of professional misconduct Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum one of the proposed charging documents and the NPA with its addendum and Acostas December letterto Sanchez As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General State Attorney Krischer mentioned to the USAOs West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epsteins local defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epsteins case that would involve a 90-day jail term but Krischer provided no further information Upon learning of this Villafana wrote to her immediate supervisor Please tell me that you are joking Maybe we should throw him Epstein a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him Villafana and her immediate supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epsteins local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA or we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starrs letter Following the offices standard protocol Starrs letter was handled by John Roth an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the USAO Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation interview witnesses or meet with Epsteins counsel and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epsteins attorneys and by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney Generals office as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office and that CEOS furnished to him Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues as well as with the Deputy Attorney General who also reviewed the submissions Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NP A and because he believed the NP A was a dead letter he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc On the other hand Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement Apart from addressing Epsteins federalism arguments however Deputy Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the mission of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de nova or to examine the NPAs terms or determine whether the NP A reached the right balance between state and federal punishment He told OPR We heard an appeal Epstein wanted a meeting to argue for relief We didnt give him a meeting and we didnt give him any relief Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epsteins arguments felt that it was a sympathetic appeal In particular he told OPR that defense counsels argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was ludicrous and the assertion that the USAOs investigation of Epstein was politically motivated just seemed unserious Villafana urged Sloman Someone really needs to talk to Bany CA/Aronberg-0577 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM On Monday June Roth sent a brief letter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them that the office had 223completed a thorough review of the USAO 2s handling,of the Epstein matter and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the 223considerable discretion vested by the Department in U.S Attorneys He added 223Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S Attorney we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate Immediately after receiving a copy of Roth 2s letter Villafana notified defense counsel that Epstein would have until close of business on Monday June to comply with the NPA by entering his guilty plea being sentenced and surrendering to begin serving his sentence On June Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein 2s counsel might try to contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to take defense counsel 2s calls Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein 2s team would try to take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case Meanwhile Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta acknowledging they had reached 223the end of a long and arduous road and adding 223While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe is the government 2s treatment of my client a man whom I have come to deeply admire I recognize that we have filed and argued our 221appellate motions and lost would like to have some closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come neither of us will harbor any ill will over the matter JUNE JUNE EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE On Friday June Villafana renewed her requests to Epstein 2s local attorneys Goldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney 2s Office noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA After receiving and reviewing the plea agreement form which was not yet signed Villafana sent another letter to Goldberger and Black informing them that the proposed sentencing provision did not comply with the requirements of the NPA Specifically as written the plea agreement called for a sentence of months in 223the Palm Beach County Detention Facility followed consecutively by months Community Control with a special condition that the defendant serve 223the first months of community control in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility Villafana objected to the community control provision reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to 223make a binding recommendation of eighteen months imprisonment which means confinement twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail In a subsequent email to Sloman Villafana recounted that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger who 221swore that Epstein would be in custody 24-hours-a-day during the community confinement portion of his sentence Villafana added that Goldberger 223let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail he would be at the stockade Since we specifically discussed this at the meeting with the State Attorney months ago that Epstein would be at the jail this certainly violates the spirit of the NPA agreement Villafana told Sloman 223Something smells very bad The Main Detention Center for Palm Beach County is a facility housing maximum medium and minimum custody adult males as well as juvenile and special population male and female inmates See CA/Aronberg-0578 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM On Monday June Roth sent a briefletter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them that the office had completed a thorough review of the USAO handling of the Epstein matter and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the considerable discretion vested by the Department in U.S Attorneys He added Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S Attorney we believe that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate Immediately after receiving a copy of Roths letter Villafana notified defense counsel that Epstein would have until close of business on Monday June to comply with the NPA by entering his guilty plea being sentenced and surrendering to begin serving his sentence On June Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epsteins counsel might try to contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to take defense counsels calls Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epsteins team would try to take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case Meanwhile Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta acknowledging they had reached the end of a long and arduous road and adding While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe is the governments treatment of my client a man whom I have come to deeply admire I recognize that we have filed and argued our appellate motions and lost would like to have some closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come neither of us will harbor any ill will over the matter JUNE JUNE EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE On Friday June Villafana renewed her requests to Epsteins local attorneys Goldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorneys Office noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA After receiving and reviewing the plea agreement form which was not yet signed Villafana sent another letter to Goldberger and Black informing them that the proposed sentencing provision did not comply with the requirements of the NPA Specifically as written the plea agreement called for a sentence of months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility followed consecutively by months Community Control with a special condition that the defendant serve the first months of community control in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility Villafana objected to the community control provision reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation of eighteen months imprisonment which means confinement twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail In a subsequent email to Sloman Villafana recounted that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger who swore that Epstein would be in custody 24-hours-a-day during the community confinement portion of his sentence Villafana added that Goldberger let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail he would be at the stockade Since we specifically discussed this at the meeting with the State Attorney months ago that Epstein would be at the jail this certainly violates the spirit of the NPA agreement Villafana told Sloman Something smells very bad The Main Detention Center for Palm Beach County is a facility housing maximum medium and minimum custody adult males as well as juvenile and special population male and female inmates See CN Aron be FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The next day Villafana asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the word 223imprisoned after months and Goldberger agreed to do so Villafana however did not ask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to 223the Palm Beach County Detention Facility meant the jail rather than the Stockade The final signed plea agreement form further clarified the sentence providing that after serving months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility Epstein would be 223sentenced to months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility to be served consecutive to the month sentence followed by months Community Control The word 223imprisoned was hand written after months but then crossed out and replaced by 223jail sentence A June Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court Epstein with his attorney Jack Goldberger appeared in Palm Beach County court on June and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution and to a criminal information charging him with one felony count of procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution.174 At the plea hearing which Villafana and the FBI case agent attended as spectators Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek did not proffer the facts of the case instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal information Between August and October the defendant in Palm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit prostitution on three or more occasions And between August and October the defendant did procure a minor under the age of to commit prostitution in Palm Beach County also.175 The court found this to be sufficient factual basis to support the pleas and engaged in a colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Epstein 2s victims The Court Are there more than one victim Ms Belohlavek There 2s several The 223Stockade was a 223lower security 221camp-style facility co-located with the Palm Beach County Sheriff 2s Office Both were administered by the SherifFs Office Plea in the Circuit Court signed June and filed in court Villafana complained to Goldberger when she learned later about the change from 223imprisoned to 223jail sentence The Information is attached as Exhibit State Epstein case nos and Transcript of Plea Conference at Fifteenth Judicial Circuit June Plea Hearing Transcript Belohlavek told OPR that reciting tire statutory language of the charge as the factual basis for the plea was tire typical practice for a state com plea Ill CA/Aronberg-0579 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I The next day Villafana asked Goldberger to change the plea agree 265ient by inserting the word imprisoned after months and Goldberger agreed to do so Villafana however did not ask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to the Palm Beach County Detention Facility meant the jail rather than the Stockade The final signed plea agreement form further clarified the sentence providing that after serving months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility Epstein would be sentenced to months in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility to be served consecutive to the month sentence followed by months Community Control The word imprisoned was hand written after months but then crossed out and replaced by jail sentence A June Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court Epstein with his attorney Jack Goldberger appeared in Palm Beach County court on June and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of solicitation of prostitution and to a criminal information charging him with one felony count of procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution At the plea hearing which Villafana and the FBI case agent attended as spectators Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek did not proffer the facts of the case instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal information Between August and October the defendant in Palm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit prostitution on three or more occasions And between August and October the defendant did procure a minor under the age of to commit prostitution in Palm Beach County also The court found this to be a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas and engaged in a colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Epsteins victims The Court Ms Belohlavek Are there more than one victim Theres several The Stockade was a lower security camp-style facility co-located with the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Both were administered by the Sheriffs Office Plea in the Circuit Court signed June and filed in court Villafana complained to Goldberger when she learned later about the change from imprisoned to jail sentence The Infomiation is attached as Exhibit State Epstein case nos and Transcript of Plea Conference at Fifteenth Judicial Circuit June Plea Hearing Transcript Belohlavek told OPR that reciting the statutory language of the cliarge as the factual basis for the plea was the typical practice for a state court plea CA Aronberg-0579 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Court Are all the victims in both these cases in agreement with the terms of the plea Ms Belohlavek I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel through counsel as to the other victim and I believe yes The Court And with regard to the victims under age eighteen is that victim 2s parents or guardian in agreement with the plea Ms Belohlavek That victim is not under age any more and that 2s why we spoke with her counsel The Court And she is in agreement with the plea Ms Belohlavek When the court asked if the plea was any way tied to any promises or representations by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions Goldberger and Belohlavek with Epstein present spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the 223confidential non-prosecution agreement with theUSAO and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court After the court accepted Epstein 2s guilty pleas and imposed sentence on him pursuant to the plea agreement Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately In the aftermath of the plea numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed positive reactions to the outcome and Villafana received several congratulatory messages Oosterbaan wrote 223Congratulations Marie long last Your work on this matter was truly exceptional and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well One senior colleague who was familiar with the case noted 223This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination Another wrote it had not been for you he would have gotten away with it The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked briefly with Villafana told her 223But for your tenacity he 2d be somewhere ruining another child 2s life One victim 2s attorney stated 223Great job of not letting this guy off But Villafana was not satisfied with the outcome responding to one colleague 223After all the hell they put me through I don 2t feel like celebrating months He should be spending years in jail Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI Special Agent in Charge called him offer congratulations and praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs Black Plea Hearing Transcript at OPR was unable to determine to which victims Belohlavek was referring and Belolilovek did not recall during her OPR interview but it is possible that she was referring only to the victims of the charged crimes rather than to all of the victims identified in either the state or federal investigations Belohlavek told OPR that because of the nature of the charges that is involving prostitution she did not know whether 223technically under the law the girls were 223victims whom she was required to notify of the plea hearing CA/Aronberg-0580 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Court Ms Belohlavek The Court Ms Belohlavek The Court Ms Belohlavek Are all the victims in both these cases agreement with the terms of the plea I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel through counsel as to the other victim and I believe yes And with regard to the victims under age eighteen is that victims parents or guardian in agreement with the plea That victim is not under age any more and thats why we spoke with her counsel And she is in agreement with the plea Yes_ When the court asked if the plea was in any way tied to any promises or representations by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions Goldberger and Belohlavek with Epstein present spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the confidential non-prosecution agreement with the USAO and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court After the court accepted Epsteins guilty pleas and imposed sentence-on him pursuant to the plea agreement Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately In the aftermath of the plea numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed positive reactions to the outcome and Villafana received several congratulatory messages Oosterbaan wrote Congratulations Marie-at long last Your work on this matter was truly exceptional and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well One senior colleague who was familiar with the case noted This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination Another wrote If it had not been for you he would have gotten away with it The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked briefly with Villafana told her But for your tenacity hed be somewhere ruining another childs life One victims attorney stated Greatjob of not letting this guy off But Villafana was not satisfied with the outcome responding to one colleague After all the hell they put me through I dont feel like celebrating months He should be spending years in jail Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI Special Agent in Charge called him to offer congratulations and to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs Black Plea Hearing Transcript at OPR was unable to detennine to which victims Belohlavek was referring and Belohlovek did not recall during her OPR interview but it is possible that she was referring only to the victims of the charged crimes rather than to all of the victims identified in either U1e state or federal investigations Belohlavek told OPR that because of U1e nature of U1e charges that is involving prostitution she did not know wheU1er technically under U1e law the girls were victims whom she was required to notify of the plea hearing CNAronberg-0580 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Dershowitz Lefkowitz and Starr In that same later public statement Acosta noted that he received communications from Dershowitz Starr and Lefkowitz who 223all sought to make peace with him Acosta referred to it as proud moment On July an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department in federal court in Miami alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA a second victim joined the petition soon thereafter The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in Chapter Three of this Report Epstein Is Placed on Work Release A few days after Epstein 2s guilty plea Villafana reported to Sloman that Epstein was incarcerated at the low-security Stockade rather than the Main Detention Center where county prisoners were usually housed She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriffs Office Epstein was eligible for work release Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be incarcerated hours a day every day the subject of work release had not been addressed explicitly during the NPA negotiations and the NPA itself was silent on the issue Epstein 2s acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as another special benefit given to Epstein Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work release program was made by the Palm Beach SherifFs Office OPR did not investigate whether any state county or Sheriffs Office rules were violated OPR did examine the USAO 2s consideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated hours a day The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed when Lefkowitz asserted in his October letter to Acosta that long as Mr Epstein 2s sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the NPA he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him including but not limited to gain time and work release In November Sloman had an exchange of letters with Lefkowitz about the USAO 2s understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in 223continuous confinement pointing out that the NPA 223clearly indicates that Mr Epstein is to be incarcerated Sloman noted that Florida 2s Department of Corrections 2s rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual offenders to participate in work release and thus Epstein would not be eligible for a work release program Sloman concluded that the USAO putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr Epstein is 221treated no better and no worse than anyone else convicted of the same offense and that if Epstein were to be granted work release the USAO would 223investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr Epstein 2s case However also in November State Attorney Krischertold Sloman that Epstein was in fact eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place Letter from Alexander Acosta whom it may concern Mar published online in The Daily Beast The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection of such a call but acknowledged that it could have occurred Sloman provided a draft of this letter to Acosta for his approval before the letter was sent to Lefkowitz CA/Aronberg-0581 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I Dershowitz Lefkowitz and Starr In that same later public statement Acosta noted that he received communications from Dershowitz Starr and Lefkowitz who all sought to make peace with him Acosta referred to it as a proud moment On July an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department in federal court in Miami alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA a second victim joined the petition soon thereafter The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in Chapter Three of this Report Epstein ls Placed on Work Release A few days after Epsteins guilty plea Villafana reported to Sloman that Epstein was incarcerated at the low-security Stockade rather than the Main Detention Center where county prisoners were usually housed She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriffs Office Epstein was eligible for work release Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be incarcerated hours a day every day the subject of work release had not been addressed explicitly during the NPA negotiations and the NPA itself was silent on the issue Epsteins acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as another special benefit given to Epstein Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work release program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office OPR did not investigate whether any state county or Sheriffs Office rules were violated OPR did examine the USAOs consideration of work release prior to signing the NP A and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated hours a day The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NP A was signed when Lefkowitz asserted in his October letter to Acosta that so long as Mr Epsteins sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the NP A he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him including but not limited to gain time and work release In November Sloman had an exchange of letters with Lefkowitz about the USAOs understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in continuous confinement pointing out that the NP A clearly indicates that Mr Epstein is to be incarcerated Sloman noted that Floridas Department of Correctionss rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual offenders to participate in work release and thus Epstein would not be eligible for a work release program Sloman concluded that the USAO is putting you on notice that it intends to make certain that Mr Epstein is treated no better and no worse than anyone else convicted of the same offense and that if Epstein were to be granted work release the USAO would investigate the reasons why an exception was granted in Mr Epsteins case However also in November State Attorney Krischertold Sloman that Epstein was in fact eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place Letter from Alexander Acosta To whom it may concern Mar published online in The Dai Beast The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection of such a call but acknowledged that it could have occurred Sloman provided a draft of this letter to Acosta for his approval before the letter was sent to Lefkowitz CA/Aronberg-0581 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM until after Epstein completed his sentence but that Krischer would oppose such a petition it is in the agreement On November the case agents met with Beiohlavek and asked if the State Attorney 2s Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release Beiohlavek was noncommittal and when the agents asked that she include language in the state 2s plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release she responded that she would have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney.180 Krischer later told OPR that work release was 223within the control of the Sheriffs Office not my office The state 2s plea agreement with Epstein did not address the issue of work release The day after Epstein entered his June plea Villafana and her immediate supervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriffs Office official to discuss work release According to Villafana the official told them 223Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on work release a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a jail supervisor the previous November as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack Goldberger to Villafana just days before the plea was entered when he 223specifically told Villafana that Epstein would not get work release Villafana alerted the Sheriff Office official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked 223every day for a 223couple of years at the 223Florida Science Foundation that entity did not even exist until November Moreover the address Epstein provided to the court for the 223Florida Science Foundation was the office of Epstein 2s attorney Jack Goldberger Villafana and her supervisor asked that the Sheriffs Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release Acosta told OPR that he was aware Villafana was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get work release and he would not have contradicted her efforts Acosta explained that the USAO expected Epstein would be 223treated just like everyone else but that as shown by 223our subsequent communications with the State Attorney 2s Office having Epstein on work release 223was not what our office envisioned In August Villafana spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein 2s compliance with the NPA and raised the issue of work release Villafana later reported to Acosta and Sloman that Black assured her he had 223reminded the team that months IN JAIL is a material term of the agreement The USAO never received notice of Epstein 2s work release application On October less than three-and-a-half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office placed him into the work release program permitting him to leave Stockade According to Sloman Krischer explained that even without registration Epstein would be treated as a 223sex offender and that 223just like any other sex offender he can petition the court for work release In tlie November email on which she copied Acosta Villafana also indicated that she was 223reviewing all of lire statutes to determine whether there was any impediment to a state judge granting Epstein work release In a subsequent email the FBI case agents informed Villafana that they had also spoken with a 223jail supervisor who advised them that although Epstein as a sexual offender would not qualify for work release the judge could nevertheless order him placed on work release if he was sentenced to a year or less of incarceration During the plea hearing Epstein told the court he was 223President of the Florida Science Foundation it had been in existence for years and he worked there 223every day Plea Hearing Transcript at CA/Aronberg-0582 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM until after Epstein completed his sentence but that Krischer would oppose such a petition if it is in the agreement On November the case agents met with Belohlavek and asked if the State Attorneys Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release Belohlavek was noncommittal and when the agents asked that she include language in the states plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release she responded that she would have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney Krischer later told OPR that work release was within the control of the Sheriffs Office not my office The states plea agreement with Epstein did not address the issue of work release The day after Epstein entered his June plea Villafana and her immediate supervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriffs Office official to discuss work release According to Villafana the official told them Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on work release a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a jail supervisor the previous November as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack Goldberger to Villafana just days before the plea was entered when he specifically told Villafana that Epstein would not get work release Villafana alerted the Sheriffs Office official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked every day for a couple of years at the Florida Science Foundation that entity did not even exist until November Moreover the address Epstein provided to the court for the Florida Science Foundation was the office of Epsteins attorney Jack Goldberger Villafana and her supervisor asked that the Sheriffs Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release Acosta told OPR that he was aware Villafana was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get work release and he would not have contradicted her efforts Acosta explained that the USAO expected Epstein would be treated just like everyone else but that as shown by our subsequent communications with the State Attorneys Office having Epstein on work release was not what our office envisioned In August Villafana spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epsteins compliance with the NPA and raised the issue of work release Villafana later reported to Acosta and Sloman that Black assured her he had reminded the team that months IN JAIL is a material term of the agreement The USAO never received notice of Epsteins work release application On October less than three-and-a-half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office placed him into the work release program permitting him to leave the Stockade According to Sloman Krischer explained that even without registration Epstein would be treated as a sex offender and that just like any other sex offender he can petition the court for work release In the November email on which she copied Acosta Villafana also indicated that she was reviewing all of the statutes to detennine whether there was any impediment to a state judge granting Epstein work release In a subsequent email the FBI case agents infonned Villafana that they had also spoken with a iail supervisor who advised them that although Epstein as a sexual offender would not qualify for work release the judge could nevertheless order him placed on work release if he was sentenced to a year or less of incarceration During the plea hearing Epstein told the court he was President of the Florida Science Foundation it had been in existence for years and he worked there every day Plea Hearing Transcript at CA/Aronberg-0582 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for up to hours per day six days per week to work at the 223Florida Science Foundation office in West Palm Beach.182 In mid-November Villafana learned that Epstein was on work release She notified Acosta Sloman and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development in an email and asked 223Can I indict him now On November Villafana sent defense attorney Black a letter notifying him that the USAO believed Epstein 2s application to and participation in the work release program constituted a material breach of the NPA Villafana reminded Black that she had 223more than a dozen e-mails expressing the USAO 2s 223insistence that Epstein be incarcerated for months and that her June letter to counsel made clear that this meant 223confinement for twenty four hours a day Villafana noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word 223imprisoned into the plea agreement as he had agreed to do but instead inserted the term 223jail sentence Villafana told counsel The USAO 2s Agreement not to prosecute Mr Epstein was based upon its determination that eighteen months incarceration i.e confinement twenty-four hours a day was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr Epstein 2s crimes Accordingly the U.S Attorney 2s Office hereby gives notice that Mr Epstein has violated the NPA by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the NPA unless Mr Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this agreement According to Villafana the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade 2s work release coordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program and that he had been threatened with legal action if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release On November the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland Ellis which was still heavily involved in the Epstein case because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment.183 As a result Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to Epstein Also on November Black responded to Villafana 2s letter acknowledging that Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program but denying that Epstein was in breach of the Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release the NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate Michele Dargan and David Rogers 223Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein 221treated differently Palm Beach Daily News Dec The recusal was formally approved by the Department on December Black forwarded the email to Sloman noting that Villafana very concerned about anything Epstein does and that the defense team would 223abide by Sloman 2s decision on the issue CA/Aronberg-0583 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for up to hours per day six days per week to work at the Florida Scien Foundation office in West Palm Beach In mid-November Villafana learned that Epstein was on work release She notified Acosta Sloman and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development in an email and asked Can I indict him now On November Villafana sent defense attorney Black a letter notifying him that the USAO believed Epsteins application to and participation in the work release program constituted a material breach of the NP A Villafana reminded Black that she had more than a dozen e-mails expressing the USAOs insistence that Epstein be incarcerated for months and that her June letter to counsel made clear that this meant confinement for twenty four hours a day Villafana noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word imprisoned into the plea agreement as he had agreed to do but instead inserted the term jail sentence Villafana told counsel The USAOs Agreement not to prosecute Mr Epstein was based upon its determination that eighteen months incarceration i.e confinement twenty-four hours a day was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in Mr Epsteins crimes Accordingly the U.S Attorneys Office hereby gives notice that Mr Epstein has violated the NPA by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment The United States will exercise any and all rights it has under the NPA unless Mr Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this agreement According to Villafana the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockades work release coordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program and that he had been threatened with legal action ifhe did not allow Epstein to participate in work release On November the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland Ellis which was still heavily involved in the Epstein case because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment As a result Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to Epstein Also on November Black responded to Villafanas letter acknowledging that Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program but denying that Epstein was in breach of the NPA Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release the NP A expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate Michele Dargan and David Rogers Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein treated differently Palm Beach Dai News Dec The recusal was fonnally approved by the Department on December Black forwarded the email to Sloman noting that Villafafia is very concerned about anything Epstein does and tlt the defense team would abide by Slomans decision on the issue CA/Aronberg-0583 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Florida law treated work release as part of confinement and the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate Black also claimed that Acosta 223recognized that Mr Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release Program and pointed out that the December draft victim notification letter sent to Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim 2s right to be notified Epstein is allowed to participate in a work release program On December in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black Villafana sent Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epstein 2s participation in the work release program It appears that since Day Goldberger and Krisher s/c have been scheming to get Epstein out on work release For example the indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged correctly Remember that Krisher Vc also went along with letting us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when Epstein 2s folks and Krisher Vc believed that the offense was not registrable Krisher svc and Goldberger also told us that Epstein would be housed at the Palm Beach County Jail not the Stockade but he would not have been eligible for work release if at the jail As part of his work release Epstein has hired off-duty Sheriff5s deputies to provide him with 223protection It appears that he is paying between and per week for this service despite the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff Office and the Sheriffs Office itself from having 223any business transactions with inmates while they are in the custody or supervision of the Sheriff Villafana added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO 223should not budge on the 24-hour-a-day incarceration requirement Referring to the CVRA litigation Villafana also pointed out two victims had brought suit against the USAO 223for failing to keep them informed about the investigation and the office had obligation to inform all of the victims upon Epstein 2s release On December Villafana wrote to the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office to express the USAO 2s view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and to alert the Sheriffs Office that Epstein 2s work release application contained several inaccuracies and omitted relevant information Villafana pointed out that Epstein 2s application identified his place of employment as the 223Florida Science Foundation and the telephone number listed in the application for the 223Florida Science Foundation was the telephone number to the law firm of Epstein 2s attorney Jack Goldberger Villafana also noted that the individual identified in the work release file as Epstein 2s 223supervisor at the 223Florida Science Foundation had submitted publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked only one hour per week and earned no compensation but that same individual had represented to CA/Aronberg-0584 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Florida law treated work release as part of confinement and the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate Black also claimed that Acosta recognized that Mr Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release Program and pointed out that the December draft victim notification letter sent to Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victims right to be notified if Epstein is allowed to participate in a work release program On December in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black Villafana sent Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epsteins participation in the work release program It appears that since Day Goldberger and Krisher sic have been scheming to get Epstein out on work release For example the indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged correctly Remember that Krisher sic also went along with letting us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when Epsteins folks and Krisher sic believed that the offense was not registrable Krisher sic and Goldberger also told us that Epstein would be housed at the Palm Beach County Jail not the Stockade but he would not have been eligible for work release if at the jail As part of his work release Epstein has hired off-duty Sheriffs deputies to provide him with protection It appears that he is paying between and per week for this service despite the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriffs Office and the Sheriffs Office itself from having any business transactions with inmates while they are in the custody or supervision of the Sheriff Villafana added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO should not budge on the 24-hour-a-day incarceration requirement Referring to the CVRA litigation Villafana also pointed out that two victims had brought suit against the USAO for failing to keep them infonned about the investigation and the office had an obligation to infonn all of the victims upon Epsteins release On December Villafana wrote to the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office to express the USAOs view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and to alert the Sheri ff Office that Epsteins work release application contained several inaccuracies and omitted relevant information Villafana pointed out that Epsteins application identified his place of employment as the Florida Science Foundation and the telephone number listed in the application for the Florida Science Foundation was the telephone number to the law firm of Epsteins attorney Jack Goldberger Villafana also noted that the individual identified in the work release file as Epsteins supervisor at the Florida Science Foundation had submitted publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked only one hour per week and earned no compensation but that same individual had represented to CA/Aronberg-0584 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the Sheriff 2s Office that Epstein 2s duties required him to work six days a week for hours per day Finally Villafana pointed out that Epstein 2s purported 223supervisor 227who as the Foundation 2s vice president was subordinate to Epstein the Foundation 2s president 227had promised to alert the Sheriff 2s Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule but the 223supervisor lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor Epstein 2s activities on a day-to-day basis The Sheriff 2s Office neither acknowledged nor responded to Villafana 2s letter In March Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for as Dershowitz characterized it in a subsequent email relaxed drink and conversation which included a discussion of the Epstein case After that encounter Dershowitz emailed Sloman expressing appreciation for Sloman 2s 223assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers Epstein 2s sentence long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate Sloman responded Regarding Mr Epstein the United States Attorney 2s Office will not interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff Office administers the sentence imposed by the Court That being said this does not mean that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the terms and conditions of his sentence Furthermore it does not mean that if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or in-home detention we would not object To be clear if contacted we will object Naturally I also expect that no one on behalf of Mr Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent to PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or home detention A week later Dershowitz emailed Sloman again this time expressing appreciation for Sloman 2s 223willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position on how he handled Epstein 2s sentence as long as Epstein not receive special treatment but adding Lef put any call off for a while Epstein 2s sentence required that be confined to his home for a 12-month period following his release from prison On July almost months after he began serving his sentence Epstein was released from the Stockade and placed on home confinement.185 At this time he registered as a sexual offender XI POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS In the summer of allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S Attorney 2s Office for the Eastern District of New York 2s investigation of investment bank Bear Stearns and that he had been released early from his 18-month imprisonment term because of that In Florida what is commonly referred to as house arrest is actually the Community Control supervision program Florida Statute defines the program as form of intensive supervised custody in the community CA/Aronberg-0585 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the Sheriffs Office that Epsteins duties required him to work six days a week for hours per day Finally Villafana pointed out that Epsteins purported supervisor"-who as the Foundations vice president was subordinate to Epstein the Foundations president-had promised to alert the Sheriffs Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule but the supervisor lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor Epsteins activities on a day-to-day basis The Sheriffs Office neither acknowledged nor responded to Villafafias letter In March Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for as Dershowitz characterized it in a subsequent email a relaxed drink and conversation which included a discussion of the Epstein case After that encounter Dershowitz emailed Sloman expressing appreciation for Slomans assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers Epsteins sentence as long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate Sloman responded Regarding Mr Epstein the United States Attorneys Office will not interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office administers the sentence imposed by the Court That being said this does not mean that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the terms and conditions of his sentence Furthermore it does not mean that if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or in-home detention we would not object To be clear if contacted we will object Naturally I also expect that no one on behalf of Mr Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent to PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or home detention A week later Dershowitz emailed Sloman again this time expressing appreciation for Slomans willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position on how he handled Epsteins sentence as long as Epstein did not receive special treatment but adding Lets put any call off for a while Epsteins sentence required that he be confined to his home for a 12-month period following his release from prison On July almost months after he began serving his sentence Epstein was released from the Stockade and placed on home confinement At this time he registered as a sexual offender XI POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS In the summer of allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New Yorks investigation of investment bank Bear Steams and that he had been released early from his 18-month imprisonment term because of that In Florida what is conunonly referred to as house arrest is actually t11e Conununity Control supervision program Florida Statute defines the program as a form of intensive supervised custody in tJ1e conununity CA/Aronberg-0585 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM cooperation.186 When Villafana spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York however an AUSA there told Villafana that 223they had never heard of Epstein and he had not cooperated with the Bear Stearns case.187 During her OPR interview Villafana told OPR that to her knowledge the rumor of Epstein 2s cooperation was 223completely false Villafana and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein 2s compliance with the terms of the NPA In August Villafana alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of his home detention had been spotted walking on the beach and when stopped by the police he claimed that he was walking work at an office nearly eight miles from his home Villafana passed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office.188 By letter dated September Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO 2s agreement to transfer supervision of the community control phase of Epstein 2s sentence to the U.S Virgin Islands where Epstein maintained his 223primary residence In response Villafana notified Black that the USAO opposed such a request and would view it as a violation of the NPA Three months later Sloman met with Dershowitz and among other issues informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of Epstein 2s community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein 2s supervision to the U.S Virgin Islands After serving his year on home detention in Florida Epstein completed his sentence on July See 223Out of Prison New York Post July The New York AUSA liad emailed Villafafia 223Were the prosecutors in the Bear Stearns easel We saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant Epstein who we had never heard of until this morning We 2ve since learned that he is pretty unsavory Villafana reported to Sloman and other supervisors that she 223just got off the phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Stearns case in the Eastern District of New York They had seen the NY Post article tliat claimed tliat Epstein got such a low sentence because he was cooperating with tire feds on the Bear Stearns prosecution They had never heard of him In a second email she confirmed 223There lias been absolutely no cooperation here or in New York from what they told me Black later wrote a letter to Villafana claiming tliat Epstein had 223specific authorization to walk to work the distance between his home and office was 223less than three miles and when the matter was 223fully investigated Epstein was found to be in 223total compliance with the requirements of his sentence CA/Aronberg-0586 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM cooperation When Villafana spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York however an AUSA there told Villafana that they had never heard of Epstein and he had not cooperated with the Bear Stearns case During her OPR interview Villafana told OPR that to her knowledge the rumor of Epsteins cooperation was completely false Villafana and the USAO continued to monitor Epsteins compliance with the terms of the NP A In August Villafana alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of his home detention-he had been spotted walking on the beach and when stopped by the police he claimed that he was walking to work at an office nearly eight miles from his home Villafana passed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office By letter dated September Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAOs agreement to transfer supervision of the community control phase of Epsteins sentence to the U.S Virgin Islands where Epstein maintained his primary residence In response Villafana notified Black that the USAO opposed such a request and would view it as a violation of the NPA Three months later Sloman met with Dershowitz and among other issues informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of Epsteins community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epsteins supervision to the U.S Virgin Islands After serving his year on home detention in Florida Epstein completed his sentence on July See Out of Prison New York Post July The New York AUSA had emailed Villafafla Were the prosecutors in the Bear Stearns easel We saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted lo ask you about this defendant Epstein who we had never heard of until this morning Weve since learned that he is pretty unsavory Villafana reported to Sloman and other supervisors that she just got off U1e phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Stearns case in lhe Eastern District of New York They had seen the NY Post article that claimed that Epstein got such a low sentence because he was cooperating with the feds on the Bear Stearns prosecution They had never heard of him In a second email she confinned There has been absolutely no cooperation here or in New York from what they told me Black later wrote a letter to Villafafia claiming that Epstein had specific authorization to walk lo work the distance between his home and office was less than three miles and when the maller was fully investigated Epstein was found to be in total compliance witi1 the requirements of his sentence CA Aronberg-0586 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER TWO PART TWO APPLICABLE STANDARDS I OPR 2S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in reckless disregard of a known unambiguous obligation imposed by law rule of professional conduct or Department regulation or policy In determining whether an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct OPR uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual findings An attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney engages in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits or engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence and that consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits An attorney acts in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard when the attorney knows or should know based on his or her experience and the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard of an obligation or standard the attorney knows or should know based on his or her experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard that the attorney 2s conduct involves a substantial likelihood that he or she will violate or cause a violation of the obligation or standard and the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct which is objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances Thus an attorney 2s disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct OPR determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment engaged in other inappropriate conduct made a mistake or acted appropriately under all the circumstances An attorney exercises poor judgment when faced with alternative courses of action he or she chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard In addition an attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding A mistake on the other hand results from an excusable human error despite an attorney 2s exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include but is not limited to the fact that the attorney reviewed materials that define or discuss one or more potentially applicable obligations and standards consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor notified the tribunal or the attorney representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct or took CA/Aronberg-0587 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER TWO PART TWO APPLICABLE STANDARDS I OPRS ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in reckless disregard of a known unambiguous obligation imposed by law rule of professional conduct or Department regulation or policy In determining whether an attorney has engaged in professional misconduct OPR uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual findings An attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney I engages in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits or engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence and that consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits An attorney acts in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard when the attorney knows or should know based on his or her experience and the unambiguous nature of the obligation or standard of an obligation or standard the attorney knows or should know based on his or her experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard that the attorneys conduct involves a substantial likelihood that he or she will violate or cause a violation of the obligation or standard and the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct which is objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances Thus an attorneys disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct OPR determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment engaged in other inappropriate conduct made a mistake or acted appropriately under all the circumstances An attorney exercises poor judgment when faced with alternative courses of action he or she chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard ln addition an attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding A mistake on the other hand results from an excusable human error despite an attorneys exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include but is not limited to the fact that the attorney reviewed materials that define or discuss one or more potentially applicable obligations and standards consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor notified the tribunal or the attorney representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct or took CA/Aronberg-0587 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or standard II APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT A The United States Attorneys Manual Among its many provisions the United States Attorneys Manual USAM includes general statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed and desirable practices to be followed by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial The goal of the USAM is to promote 223the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws and to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made 223rationally and objectively on the merits of each case USAM Because the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of government attorneys many of its principles are cast in general terms with a view to providing guidance rather than mandating results Id see also USAM comment is expected that each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law enforcement responsibilities However it is not intended that reference to these principles will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case USAM comment 223Under the Federal criminal justice system the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when whom how and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law However USAM provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal prosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline In particular USAM states that each U.S Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with the principles set forth in the USAM and that serious unjustified departures from the principles set forth in the USAM are followed by remedial action including the imposition of disciplinary sanctions when warranted and deemed appropriate U.S Attorneys have 223plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters and may modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts USAM The USAM provisions are supplemented by the Department 2s Criminal Resource Manual which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal prosecutions USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them USAM explicitly authorizes a U.S Attorney decline prosecution in any case referred directly to In the USAM was revised and reissued as the Justice Manual In assessing the subjects conduct OPR relies upon the standards of conduct in effect at the time of the events in issue Accordingly unless otherwise noted citations in this Report are to the edition of the USAM as revised through January CA/Aronberg-0588 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM affinnative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or standard ll APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT A The United States Attorneys Manual Among its many provisions the United States Attorneys Manual USAM includes general statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed and desirable practices to be followed by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial responsibilities The goal of the USAM is to promote the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws and to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made rationally and objectively on the merits of each case USAM Because the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of government attorneys many of its principles are cast in general terms with a view to providing guidance rather than mandating results Id see also USAM comment It is expected that each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law enforcement responsibilities However it is not intended that reference to these principles will require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case USAM comment Under the Federal criminal justice system the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when whom how and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law However USAM provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal prosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline In particular USAM states that each U.S Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with the principles set forth in the USAM and that serious unjustified departures from the principles set forth in the USAM are followed by remedial action including the imposition of disciplinary sanctions when warranted and deemed appropriate U.S Attorneys have plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters and may modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts USAM The USAM provisions are supplemented by the Departments Criminal Resource Manual which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal prosecutions USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a Federal Prosecution Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them USAM explicitly authorizes a U.S Attorney to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to In the USAM was revised and reissued as the Justice Manual In assessing the subjects conduct OPR relies upon the standards of conduct in effect at the time of the events in issue Accordingly unless otherwise noted citations in this Report are to the edition of the USAM as revised through January CA/Aronberg-0588 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise Whenever a U.S Attorney closes a case without prosecution the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it USAM sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense unless the prosecution would serve no federal interest the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction or there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor 2s task to determine whether these circumstances exist and in making that determination the prosecutor 223should consult USAM or as appropriate USAM sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person Federal law enforcement priorities;190 The nature and seriousness of the offense;191 The deterrent effect of prosecution The person 2s culpability in connection with the offense The person 2s history with respect to criminal activity The person 2s willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others and The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted The USAM contemplates that on occasion a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred USAM directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction the federal prosecutor should weigh 223all relevant considerations including the strength of the other jurisdiction 2s interest in prosecution the other jurisdiction 2s ability and willingness to prosecute effectively and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction A comment to this provision explains A comment to tliis provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities A comment to tliis provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense must also include consideration of the impact on the victim The comment further cautions tliat when restitution is at issue 223care should be taken to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils of his/her crime I I CA/Aronberg-0589 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise Whenever a l.J.S Attorney closes a case without prosecution the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it USAM sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense unless the prosecution would serve no federal interest the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction or there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutors task to determine whether these circumstances exist and in making that determination the prosecutor should consult USAM or as appropriate USAM sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person Federal law enforcement priorities The nature and seriousness of the offense The deterrent effect of prosecution The persons culpability in connection with the offense The persons history with respect to criminal activity The persons willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others and The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted The USAM contemplates that on occasion a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred USAM directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction the federal prosecutor should weigh all relevant considerations including the strength of the other jurisdictions interest in prosecution the other jurisdictions ability and willingness to prosecute effectively and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction A comment to this provision explains A c01mnent to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities A conunent to this provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense must also include consideration of the impact on the victim The comment further cautions that vhen restitution is at issue care should be taken to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils of his/her crime CA/Aronberg-0589 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Some offenses even though in violation of Federal law are of particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local jurisdiction in which they occur either because of the nature of the offense the identity of the offender or victim the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state or local investigators or some other circumstance Whatever the reason when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less substantial than the interest of state or local authorities consideration should be given to referring the case to those authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal prosecution Another comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities 223the Federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions attitudes relationships or other circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a thorough and successful prosecution USAM identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether to initiate or decline a federal prosecution Specifically the decision may not be based on consideration of the person 2s race religion sex national origin or political association activities or beliefs the prosecutor 2s 223own personal feelings about the person or the victim or the possible effect of the decision on the prosecutor 2s own professional or personal circumstances When opting to decline federal prosecution the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons forthat decision are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files USAM USAM The Petite Policy Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and federal authorities even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions the Department has a long-standing policy known as the Petite policy governing federal prosecutions charged after the initiation of a prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar conduct.192 The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set forth in USAM 223Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy 221Petite Policy which contains guidelines for a federal prosecutor 2s exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on the substantially same act or transaction involved in a prior state or federal proceeding The policy applies 223whenever there has been a prior state or federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal a conviction including one resulting from a plea agreement or a dismissal or other termination on the merits after jeopardy has attached In circumstances in which the policy applies a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist The prerequisites are as follows The matter must involve a substantial federal interest The determination whether a substantial federal interest is involved is made on a case-by-case basis Matters See Rinaldi United States U.S Petite United States U.S CA/Aronberg-0590 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Some offenses even though in violation of Federal law are of particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local jurisdiction in which they occur either because of the nature of the offense the identity of the offender or victim the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state or local investigators or some other circumstance Whatever the reason when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less substantial than the interest of state or local authorities consideration should be given to referring the case to those authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal prosecution Another comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities the Federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions attitudes relationships or other circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a thorough and successful prosecution USAM identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether to initiate or decline a federal prosecution Specifically the decision may not be based on consideration of the persons race religion sex national origin or political association activities or beliefs the prosecutors own personal feelings about the person or the victim or the possible effect of the decision on the prosecutors own professional or personal circumstances When opting to decline federal prosecution the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files USAM USAM The Petite Policy Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and federal authorities even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions the Department has a long-standing policy known as the Petite policy governing federal prosecutions charged after the initiation of a prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar conduct The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set forth in USAM Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy Petite Policy which contains guidelines for a federal prosecutors exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on the substantially same act or transaction involved in a prior state or federal proceeding The policy applies whenever there has been a prior state or federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal a conviction including one resulting from a plea agreement or a dismissal or other termination on the merits after jeopardy has attached In circumstances in which the policy applies a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist The prerequisites are as follows The matter must involve a substantial federal interest The determination whether a substantial federal interest is involved is made on a case-by-case basis Matters See Rinaldi United States U.S Petite United States U.S CNAronberg-0590 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM that come within the national investigation and prosecution:priorities established by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest 223demonstrably unvindicated In general the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has vindicated federal interests but that presumption may be overcome in certain circumstances As relevant here the presumption may be overcome when the choice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as incompetence corruption intimidation or undue influence The presumption may be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction if the prior sentence was 223manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence 227including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines available through the contemplated federal prosecution The government must believe that the defendant 2s conduct constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction However the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a federal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed prosecution The Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular prosecution the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve an investigation or pending case through a plea agreement USAM Negotiated pleas are also explicitly sanctioned by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Regardless of whether the plea agreement is offered pre-charge or post-charge the prosecutor 2s plea bargaining 223must honestly reflect the totality and seriousness of the defendant 2s conduct USAM comment.194 The importance of selecting a charge that reflects the seriousness of the conduct is echoed in USAM which directs the prosecutor to require a defendant to plead to an offense that represents the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the As previously noted Rule permits the parties to agree to resolve the case in exchange for a specific sentence subject to the court 2s acceptance of the agreement See also USAM 223Once the decision to prosecute has been made the attorney for tire government should charge the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of tire defendant 2s conduct and tliat is likely to result in a sustainable conviction I CA/Aronberg-0591 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I that come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated In general the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has vindicated federal interests but that presumption may be overcome in certain circumstances As relevant here the presumption may be overcome when the choice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as incompetence corruption intimidation or undue influence The presumption may be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction if the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence-including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines-is available through the contemplated federal prosecution The government must believe that the defendants conduct constitutes a federal offense and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction However the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a federal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed prosecution The Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts to determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular prosecution the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve an investigation or pending case through a plea agreement USAM Negotiated pleas are also explicitly sanctioned by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Regardless of whether the plea agreement is offered pre-charge or post-charge the prosecutors plea bargaining must honestly reflect the totality and seriousness of the defendants conduct USAM comment The importance of selecting a charge that reflects the seriousness of the conduct is echoed in USAM which directs the prosecutor to require a defendant to plead to an offense that represents the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the As previously noted Rule ll pennits the parties to agree to resolve the case in exchange for a specific sentence subject to the courts acceptance of the agreement See also USAM Once the decision to prosecute has been made the attorney for the government should charge the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of t11e defendants conduct and that is likely to result in a sustainable conviction eAJAronberg-0591 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM defendant 2s criminal conduct has an adequate factual basis makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and order of restitution and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others USAM specifies In determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea agreement the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations including The defendant 2s willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others The defendant 2s history with respect to criminal activity The nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses charged The defendant 2s remorse or contrition and his/her willingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct The desirability of prompt and certain disposition of the case The likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial The probable effect on witnesses The probable sentence or other consequences if the defendant is convicted The public interest in having the case tried rather than disposed of by a guilty plea The expense of trial and appeal The need to avoid delay in the disposition of other pending cases and The effect upon the victim 2s right to restitution USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements USAM authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person 2s cooperation The provision explains that a non-prosecution agreement is appropriate for this purpose when in the prosecutor 2s judgment the person 2s timely cooperation 223appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired cooperation are unavailable or would not be effective A comment to this provision explains that such 223other means include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction bargaining for CA/Aronberg-0592 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM defendants criminal conduct has an adequate factual basis makes likelyithe imposition of an appropriate sentence and order of restitution and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others USAM specifies In determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea agreement the attorney for the government should weigh all relevant considerations including The defendants willingness to cooperate the investigation or prosecution of others The defendants history with respect to criminal activity The nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses charged The defendants remorse or contrition and his/her willingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct The desirability of prompt and certain disposition of the case The likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial The probable effect on witnesses The probable sentence or other consequences if the defendant is convicted The public interest in having the case tried rather than disposed ofby a guilty plea The expense of trial and appeal The need to avoid delay in the disposition of other pending cases and The effect upon the victims right to restitution USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements USAM authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a persons cooperation The provision explains that a non-prosecution agreement is appropriate for this purpose when in the prosecutors judgment the persons timely cooperation appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired cooperation are unavailable or would not be effective A comment to this provision explains that such other means include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction bargaining for CA/Aronberg-0592 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM cooperation as part of a plea agreement or compelling cooperation under a 223use immunity order The comment observes that these alternative means 223are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct and 223should be given serious consideration in the first instance USAM and set forth considerations a prosecutor should take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement Generally the U.S Attorney has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement USAM comment However USAM directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person 2s cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or his or her designee when the person is someone who likely to become of major public interest These USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity Nothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant Instead the provision that addresses immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See USAM etseq USAM/C.F.R Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest Department employees are expected to be aware of and to comply with all ethics-related laws rules regulations and policies See generally USAM et seq Specifically a government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an interest can be imputed to him See U.S.C and C.F.R In addition a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which his impartiality could be questioned If a conflict of interest exists in order for the employee to participate in the matter the head of the employee 2s component with the concurrence of an ethics official must make a determination that the interest of the government in the employee 2s participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the Department 2s programs and operations The determination must be made in writing See C.F.R Other Department Policies Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges The Attorney General has the responsibility for establishing prosecutorial priorities for the Department Over the span of several decades each successive Attorney General has articulated those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors As applicable here on September Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding 223Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses Disposition of Charges and Sentencing Ashcroft Memo The Ashcroft Memo which explicitly superseded all previous Departmental guidance on the subject set forth policies 223designed to ensure that all federal I CA/Aronberg-0593 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM cooperation as part of a plea agreement or compelling cooperation under a use immunity order The comment observes that these alternative means are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct and should be given serious consideration in the first instance USAM and set forth considerations a prosecutor should take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement Generally the U.S Attorney has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement USAM comment However USAM directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a persons cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or his or her designee when the person is someone who is likely to become of major public interest These USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity Nothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant Instead the provision that addresses immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See USAM et seq USAM/C.F.R Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest Department employees are expected to be aware of and to comply with all ethics-related laws rules regulations and policies See generally USAM et seq Specifically a government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an interest can be imputed to him See U.S.C and C.F.R In addition a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which his impartiality could be questioned If a conflict of interest exists in order for the employee to participate in the matter the head of the employees component with the concurrence of an ethics official must make a determination that the interest of the government in the employees participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the Departments programs and operations The determination must be made in writing See C.F.R Other Department Policies Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges The Attorney General has the responsibility for establishing prosecutorial priorities for the Department Over the span of several decades each successive Attorney General has articulated those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors As applicable here on September Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses Disposition of Charges and Sentencing Ashcroft Memo The Ashcroft Memo which explicitly superseded all previous Departmental guidance on the subject set forth policies designed to ensure that all federal CA/Aronberg-0593 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives of the Sentencing Reform Act of the Sentencing Guidelines and the PROTECT Act their charging case disposition and sentencing practices The Ashcroft Memo directed that all federal cases federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General U.S Attorney or designated supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances The Ashcroft Memo cautioned that a charge is not 223readily provable if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt based on either the law or the evidence as to the government 2s ability to prove the charge at trial The Ashcroft Memo explains that the 223basic policy 223requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable and would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines The policy set forth six exceptions including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor to decline to pursue readily provable charges other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General U.S Attorney or 223designated supervisory attorney As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be appropriate the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S Attorney 2s Office is 223particularly over-burdened the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that 223charges may be declined pursuant to a plea agreement only to the extent consistent with the policies established by the Memo On January Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum entitled 223Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing That memorandum reiterated that federal prosecutors 223must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offenses and defined that term as the offenses that would 223generate the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines any applicable mandatory minimum and any statutorily required consecutive sentence Importantly although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line prosecutor 2s ability to decline 223readily provable charges in their entirety no such restriction is placed upon the U.S Attorneys who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy In addition the policy applies to 223readily provable charges thus inherently allowing a prosecutor The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided United States Booker U.S which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute dial required federal district judges to impose a sentence witliin the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range Those Guidelines were the product of the United States Sentencing Commission which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of The Prosecutorial Remedies and Oilier Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today PROTECT Act of Pub Stat was directed at preventing child abuse It included a variety of provisions designed to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against children Among other tilings the PROTECT Act provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses such as those involving multiple occasions of proliibiled sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified numbers of images CA/Aronberg-0594 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives of the Sentencing Re orm Act of the Sentencing Guidelines and the PROTECT Act in their charging case dispo.sition and sentencing practices The Ashcroft Memo directed that in all federal cases federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General U.S Attorney or designated supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances The Ashcroft Memo cautioned that a charge is not readily provable if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt based on either the law or the evidence as to the governments ability to prove the charge at trial The Ashcroft Memo explains that the basic policy requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable and would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines The policy set forth six exceptions including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor to decline to pursue readily provable charges in other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General U.S Attorney or designated supervisory attorney As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be appropriate the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S Attorneys Office is particularly over-burdened the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that charges may be declined pursuant to a plea agreement only to the extent consistent with the policies established by the Memo On January Deputy Attorney General James Corney issued a memorandum entitled Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing That memorandum reiterated that federal prosecutors must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offenses and defined that term as the offenses that would generate the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines any applicable mandatory minimum and any statutorily required consecutive sentence Importantly although the Ashcroft and Corney memoranda limit an individual line prosecutors ability to decline readily provable charges in their entirety no such restriction is placed upon the U.S Attorneys who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy In addition the policy applies to readily provable charges thus inherently allowing a prosecutor The Ashcroft Memo was issued before U1c Supreme Court decided United Sia/es Booker U.S which struck down the provision ofU1c federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range Those Guidelines were U1c product of the United States Sentencing Conunission which was created by the Sentencing Rcfonn Act of The Prosecutorial Remedies and OU1er Tools to End U1e Exploitation of Children Today PROTECT Act of Pub Stat was directed at preventing child abuse It included a variety of provisions designed to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against childre!l Among otherthings the PROTECT Act provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses such as those involving multiple occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or Umse involving material wiU1 depictions of violence or with specified numbers of images CA/Aronberg-0594 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM flexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a 223good faith doubt that the law or evidence supports the charge Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens On April the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors entitled 223Deportation of Criminal Aliens directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly become involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States In pertinent part this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious deportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with alien defendants These tools include stipulated administrative deportation orders in connection with plea agreements deportation as a condition of supervised release under U.S.C and judicial deportation orders pursuant to U.S.C The memorandum further directs All deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist Accordingly absent such circumstances Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of deportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most appropriate in a particular case Exceptions to this policy must have the written approval of the United States Attorney See also USAM A 223criminal alien is a foreign national who has been convicted of a crime Stipulated administrative deportation orders can be based the conviction for an offense to which the alien will plead guilty provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in U.S.C as an offense that causes an alien to be deported Under U.S.C a A i any alien who is convicted of a crime of 223moral turpitude within five years after the date of entry or years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status and is either sentenced to confinement or confined to prison for one year or longer is deportable Case Law Prosecutorial Discretion On many occasions the Supreme Court has discussed the breadth of the prosecutor 2s discretion in deciding whether and whom to prosecute In Bordenkircher Hayes U.S the Court considered the propriety of a prosecutor 2s threat during plea negotiations to seek more serious charges against the accused if the accused did not plead guilty to the offense originally charged The defendant Hayes opted not to plead guilty to the original offense and According to the U.S Customs and Border Protection 223The term 221criminal alien refers to aliens who have been convicted of one or more crimes whether in the United States or abroad prior to interdiction by the U.S Border Patrol See U.S Dept of Homeland Security U.S Customs and Border Protection CBP Enforcement Statistics Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year available at statistics/criminal-alien-statistics CA/Aronberg-0595 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM flexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a good faith dbubt that the law or evidence supports the charge Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens On April the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors entitled Deportation of Criminal Aliens directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly become involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States In pertinent part this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious deportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with alien defendants These tools include stipulated administrative deportation orders in connection with plea agreements deportation as a condition of supervised release under U.S.C and judicial deportation orders pursuant to U.S.C The memorandum further directs All deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist Accordingly absent such circumstances Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of deportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most appropriate in a particular case Exceptions to this policy must have the written approval of the United States Attorney See also USAM A criminal alien is a foreign national who has been convicted of a crime Stipulated administrative deportation orders can be based on the conviction for an offense to which the alien will plead guilty provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in U.S.C as an offense that causes an alien to be deported Under U.S.C a A i any alien who is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude within five years after the date of entry or years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status and is either sentenced to confinement or confined to prison for one year or longer is deportable Case Law Prosecutorial Discretion On many occasions the Supreme Court has discussed the breadth of the prosecutors discretion in deciding whether and whom to prosecute In Bordenkircher Hayes U.S the Court considered the propriety of a prosecutors threat during plea negotiations to seek more serious charges against the accused if the accused did not plead guilty to the offense originally charged The defendant Hayes opted not to plead guilty to the original offense and According to the U.S Customs and Border Protection The tenn criminal alien refers to aliens who have been convicted of one or more crimes whether in the United States or abroad prior lo interdiction by U1e U.S Border Patrol See U.S Dept of Homeland Security U.S Customs and Border Protection CBP Enforcement Statistics Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year available at statistics/criminal-alien-statistics CA/Aronberg-0595 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH-ABRUZZO CLERK PM the prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges Hayes was thereafter convicted and sentenced under the new indictment The state court of appeals rejected Hayes 2s challenge to his conviction concluding that the prosecutor 2s decision to indict on more serious charges was a legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process Hayes filed for review of his conviction and sentence in federal court and although Hayes lost at the district court level the U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor 2s conduct constituted impermissible vindictive prosecution The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit 2s ruling The Court opined that 223acceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining process Id at A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed 223the decision whether or not to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury rests entirely in his discretion Id at emphasis added The Court explained that selectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race religion or other arbitrary classification Id These principles were reiterated in Wayte United States U.S a case involving the government 2s policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system The petitioner in Wayte claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were 223vocal opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights The Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that the government has 223broad discretion in deciding whom to prosecute and that the limits of that discretion are reached only when the prosecutor 2s decision is based on an unjustifiable standard Id at Because the passive enforcement policy was not intended to have a discriminatory effect the claim of selective prosecution failed In Imbler Pachtman U.S the Supreme Court considered whether a state prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties could be sued under U.S.C for violation of the defendant 2s constitutional rights when the defendant alleged that the prosecutor and others had unlawfully conspired to charge and convict him The Court held that initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State 2s case conduct that is 223intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages Id at In Harrington Almy F.2d 1st Cir the court applied Imbler to a challenge to a prosecutor 2s decision not to prosecute The court noted that 223given the availability of immunity for the decision to charge it becomes even more important that symmetrical protection be available for the decision not to charge Id at emphasis in original Finally in an analogous area of the law in Heckler Chaney U.S the Supreme Court concluded that an agency 2s decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not reviewable under the federal Administrative Procedure Act U.S.C Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party Case law regarding promises made during plea negotiations not to prosecute a third-party arises in two contexts First defendants have challenged the voluntariness of the resulting plea CA/Aronberg-0596 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I the prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges Hayes was thereafter convicted and sentenced under the new indictment The state court of appeals rejected Hayess challenge to his conviction concluding that the prosecutors decision to indict on more serious charges was a legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process Hayes filed for review of his conviction and sentence in federal court and although Hayes lost at the district court level the U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutors conduct constituted impermissible vindictive prosecution The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuits ruling The Court opined that acceptance of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining process id at A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed the decision whether or not to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury rests entirely in his discrehon Id at emphasis added The Court explained that selectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race religion or other arbitrary classification id These principles were reiterated in Wayte United States U.S a case involving the governments policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system The petitioner in Wayte claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were vocal opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights The Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that the government has broad discretion in deciding whom to prosecute and that the limits of that discretion are reached only when the prosecutors decision is based on an unjustifiable standard Id at Because the passive enforcement policy was not intended to have a discriminatory effect the claim of selective prosecution failed In Imbler Pachtman U.S the Supreme Court considered whether a state prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties could be sued under U.S.C for violation of the defendants constitutional rights when the defendant alleged that the prosecutor and others had unlawfully conspired to charge and convict him The Court held that in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the States case conduct that is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages Id at In Harrington Almy F.2d 1st Cir the court applied Imbler to a challenge to a prosecutors decision not to prosecute The court noted that given the availability of immunity for the decision to charge it becomes even more important that symmetrical protection be available for the decision not to charge Id at emphasis in original Finally in an analogous area of the law in Heckler Chaney U.S the Supreme Court concluded that an agencys decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not reviewable under the federal Administrative Procedure Act U.S.C Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party Case law regarding promises made during plea negotiations not to prosecute a third-party arises in two contexts First defendants have challenged the voluntariness of the resulting plea CA/Aronberg-0596 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM when prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations Numerous courts have made clear however that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a promise of leniency towards a third party or in response to a prosecutor 2s threat to prosecute a third party if a plea is not entered See e.g United States Marquez F.2d 2d Cir rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by the government 2s insistence that a defendant 2s wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he pled guilty Martin Kemp F.2d 11th Cir in order to satisfy 223heavy burden of establishing that the government had not acted good faith a defendant challenging voluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against the defendant 2s pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe the defendant 2s wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her Stinson State So 2d Fla App cases involving a promise not to prosecute a third party the government must act in good faith and must have probable cause to charge the third party The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors promises of leniency to third parties For example in State Frazier So 2d Fla App as consideration for the defendant 2s guilty plea the prosecutor agreed and announced in open court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendant 2s niece and nephew who had all been charged as a result of the same incident When the state reneged and attempted to prosecute the niece and nephew the trial court dismissed the charges against them and the state appealed The appellate court affirmed the dismissal concluding that under contract law principles the niece and nephew were third-party beneficiaries of the plea agreement and were therefore entitled to enforce it Apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns courts have not suggested that a prosecutor 2s promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion State Bar Rules During the period relevant to this Report the five subject attorneys were members of the bar in several different states and were subject to the rules of professional conduct in each state in which they held membership.197 In determining which rules apply OPR applied the local rules of the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida Local Rules and the choice-of-law provisions of each applicable bar Local Rule incorporates rules governing the admission practice peer review and discipline of attorneys Attorney Admission Rules Attorney Admission Rule provides that any U.S Attorney or AUSA employed full-time by the government may appear and participate in particular actions or proceedings on behalf of the United States in the attorney 2s official capacity without petition for admission Any attorney so appearing The subjects membership in state bars other titan Florida would not affect OPR 2s conclusions in this case These rules have been in effect since December CA/Aronberg-0597 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I when prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations Numerous courts have made clear however that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agre ment that includes a promise of leniency towards a third party or in response to a prosecutors threat to prosecute a third party if a plea is not entered See e.g United States Marquez F.2d 2d Cir I rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by the governments insistence that a defendants wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he pied guilty Martin Kemp F.2d 11th Cir in order to satisfy heavy burden of establishing that the government had not acted in good faith a defendant challenging voluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against the defendants pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe the defendants wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her Stinson State So 2d Fla App In cases involving a promise not to prosecute a third party the government must act in good faith and must have probable cause to charge the third party The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors promises of leniency to third parties For example in State Frazier So 2d Fla App as consideration for the defendants guilty plea the prosecutor agreed and announced in open court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendants niece and nephew who had all been charged as a result of the same incident When the state reneged and attempted to prosecute the niece and nephew the trial court dismissed the charges against them and the state appealed The appellate court affirmed the dismissal concluding that under contract law principles the niece and nephew were third-party beneficiaries of the plea agreement and were therefore entitled to enforce it Apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns courts have not suggested that a prosecutors promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion State Bar Rules During the period relevant to this Report the five subject attorneys were members of the bar in several different states and were subject to the rules of professional conduct in each state in which they held membership In determining which rules apply OPR applied the local rules of the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida Local Rules and the choice-of-law provisions of each applicable bar Local Rule incorporates rules governing the admission practice peer review and discipline of attorneys Attorney Admission Rules Attorney Admission Rule provides that any U.S Attorney or AUSA employed full-time by the government may appear and participate in particular actions or proceedings on behalf of the United States in the attorneys official capacity without petition for admission Any attorney so appearing The subjects membership in state bars other than Florida would not affect OPRs conclusions in this case These rules have been in effect since December CA/Aronberg-0597 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM is subject to all rules of the court.199 Attorney Admission Rule A makes clear that attorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bar 2s Rules ofProfessional Conduct FRPC Moreover the choice-of-law provisions contained within the relevant state 2s rules of professional conduct make the FRPC applicable to their conduct FRPC Competence FRPC requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client.200 Competent representation requires the legal knowledge skill thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors relevant to determining a lawyer 2s competence to handle a particular matter include 223the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter the lawyer 2s general experience the lawyer 2s training and experience in the field in question the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to or associate or consult with a lawyer of established competence in the field The comment further notes that many instances the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner With respect to particular matters competence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem The comment to Rule explains that 223the required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more extensive-290.5 treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence FRPC Diligence FRPC specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client A comment to this rule explains lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client 2s cause or endeavor A lawyer must exercise 223zeal in advocating for the client but is not required press for every advantage that might be realized for a client FRPC Candor in Dealing with Others FRPC prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client A comment to this rule explains that 223misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements and 223whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances See also U.S.C a providing that government attorneys are subject to state laws and state and local federal court rules governing attorneys in each state where the government attorney engages in his duties The federal prosecutor does not liave an individual 223client but rather represents the people of the United States See generally U.S.C duties of U.S Attorney C.F.R the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters CA/Aronberg-0598 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I is subject to all rules of the court Attorney Admission Rule A makes clear that attorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bars Rules of Professional Conduct I FRPC Moreover the choice-of-law provisions contained within the rel.evant states rules of professional conduct make the FRPC applicable to their conduct I FRPC 4-1.1-Competence FRPC requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client Competent representation requires the legal knowledge skill thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors relevant to determining a lawyers competence to handle a particular matter include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter the lawyers general experience the lawyers training and experience in the field in question the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to or associate or consult with a lawyer of established competence in the field The comment further notes that in many instances the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner With respect to particular matters competence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem The comment to Rule explains that the required attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence FRPC Diligence FRPC specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client A comment to this rule explains A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a clients cause or endeavor A lawyer must exercise zeal in advocating for the client but is not required to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client FRPC Candor in Dealing with Others FRPC prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client A comment to this rule explains that misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements and whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances See also U.S.C a providing that government attorneys are subject to state laws and state and local federal court rules governing attorneys in each state where the government attorney engages in his duties I The federal prosecutor does not have an individual client but rather represents the people of the United Stales See general U.S.C duties of U.S Attorney C.F.R the Aftorney General represents the United States in legal matters CNAronberg-0598 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM FRPC Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice FRPC states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or misrepresentation FRPC prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice In Florida Bar Frederick So 2d Fla the court noted that FRPC is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding but can be applied to 223conduct in connection with the practice of law In Florida Bar Shankman So 3d Fla for example an attorney 2s continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the client 2s matter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation of FRPC due to the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client.201 OPR also examined FRPC Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor Nothing in the text of that rule however was relevant to Ilie issues addressed in tliis Report A comment to FRPC Rule notes that Florida lias adopted the American Bar Association ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function These 223standards however are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance to prosecutors Indeed Ilie ABA lias expressly stated that these standards 223are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional discipline to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons to create a standard of care for civil liability or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge OPR does not consider the ABA standards as binding on the conduct of Department prosecutors CA/Aronberg-0599 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM FRPC Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice FRPC states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or misrepresentation FRPC prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice In Florida Bar Frederick So 2d Fla the court noted that FRPC is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding but can be applied to conduct in connection with the practice oflaw In Florida Bar Shankman So 3d Fla for example an attorneys continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the clients matter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation ofFRPC due to the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client QPR also cxantincd FRPC Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor Nothing in the text of that rule however was relevant to the issues addressed in this Report A conuncnt to FRPC Ruic notes U1at Florida has adopted U1e American Bar Association ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to U1e Prosecution Function These standards however are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance lo prosecutors Indeed U1e ABA has expressly stated U1at these standards are not intended to serve as the basis for U1e imposition of professional discipline to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons to create a standard of care for civil liability or to se1ve as a predicate for a motion lo suppress evidence or dismiss a charge OPR does not consider the ABA standards as binding on U1e conduct of Department prosecutors CNAronberg-0599 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CA/Aronberg-0600 Page Intentionally Left Blank FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Page Intentionally Left Blank CA/Aronberg-0600 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER TWO PART THREE ANALYSIS I OVERVIEW Following the Miami Herald report in November media scrutiny of and public attention to the USAO 2s handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated At the heart of the public 2s concern is the perception that Epstein 2s 18-month sentence which resulted in a month term of actual incarceration was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein 2s criminal conduct Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from Epstein 2s conduct the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making process leading to the signed NPA As a result questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff motivations for entering into the NPA Publicly released communications between prosecutors and defense counsel the leniency of the sentence and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the NPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a 223sweetheart deal because they were motivated by improper influences such as their preexisting and personal relationships with his attorneys or even corrupt influences such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein Through its investigation OPR has sought to answer the following core questions who was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its specific terms did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules or regulations and were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by improper factors such as corruption or favoritism To the extent that available records and witness interviews shed light on these questions OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA from the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive interviews of subjects and witnesses OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions concerning theNPA 2s origins and development Although some questions remain OPR sets forth its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT Although Acosta did not sign the NPA he approved it with knowledge of its terms He revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate Acosta told OPR that he either was informed of or had access to information concerning the underlying facts of the case against Epstein OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision and Acosta did not make such a claim to OPR As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview the 223three pronged resolution two years registration and restitution ultimately that was approved on my authority Ultimately I approved it and so I accept that I 2m not pushing away responsibility for it In making its misconduct assessments OPR considers the conduct of subjects individually Menchel Sloman Lourie and Villafana were involved in the matter to varying degrees at I CA/Aronberg-0601 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I OVERVIEW CHAPTER TWO PART THREE ANALYSIS Following the Miami Herald report in November media scrutiny of and public attention to the USAOs handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated At the heart of the publics concern is the perception that Epsteins 18-month sentence which resulted in a month term of actual incarceration was too lenient and inadequately punished Epsteins criminal conduct Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from Epsteins conduct the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making process leading to the signed NP A As a result questions have arisen about Acosta and his staffs motivations for entering into the NPA Publicly released communications between prosecutors and defense counsel the leniency of the sentence and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the NP A have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a sweetheart deal because they were motivated by improper influences such as their preexisting and personal relationships with his attorneys or even corrupt influences such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein Through its investigation OPR has sought to answer the following core questions who was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its specific terms did the NP A or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules or regulations and were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by improper factors such as corruption or favoritism To the extent that available records and witness interviews shed light on these questions OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NP A from the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive interviews of subjects and witnesses OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions concerning the NPAs origins and development Although some questions remain OPR sets forth its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part ll ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT Although Acosta did not sign the NP A he approved it with knowledge of its terms He revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate Acosta told OPR that he either was informed of or had access to information concerning the underlying facts of the case against Epstein OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision and Acosta did not make such a claim to OPR As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview the three pronged resolution two years registration and restitution ultimately that was approved on my authority Ultimately I approved it and so I accept that Im not pushing away responsibility for it In making its misconduct assessments OPR considers the conduct of subjects individually Menchel Sloman Lourie and Villafana were involved in the matter to varying degrees at CA Aronberg-0601 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM different points in time and regarding different decisions Menchel for example participated in formulating the USAO 2s initial written offer to the defense but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made after August Sloman was absent during part of the most intense negotiations in September and did not see the final signed version of the NPA until he returned Villafana and Lourie participated in the negotiations and Lourie either made decisions during the September meeting with the defense and State Attorney 2s Office or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta 2s approval In any event whatever the level of Sloman 2s Menchel 2s Lourie 2s and Villafana 2s involvement they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta Under OPR 2s analytical framework an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include but is not limited to the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.202 In this regard OPR 2s framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer 2s reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty See e.g FRPC Therefore in addition to the fact that OPR did not find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below OPR concludes that Menchel Sloman Lourie and Villafana not commit professional misconduct with respect to any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta 2s direction and with his approval IH OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY IN NEGOTIATING APPROVING OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of the subjects in developing negotiating or entering into the NPA violated any clear and unambiguous standard established by rule regulation or policy OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard OPR considered three specific areas standards implicated by the decision to decline a federal court prosecution standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a non-prosecution agreement and standards implicated by any of the NPA 2s provisions including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties As discussed below OPR concludes that in each area and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences the U.S Attorney possessed broad discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit authority that he could delegate to subordinates and that Acosta 2s exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous standard As a result OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that die subordinate attorney lias not acted in 223good faith OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here and Acosta did not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision I CA/Aronberg-0602 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM different points in time and regarding different decisions Menchel for example participated in formulating the USA Os initial written offer to the defense but he had no inv9lvement with actions or decisions made after August Sloman was absent during part of the most intense negotiations in September and did not see the final signed version of the NP A until he returned Villafana and Lourie participated in the negotiations and Lourie either made decisions during the September meeting with the defense and State Attorneys Office or at least indicated agreement pending Acostas approval In any event whatever the level of Slomans Menchels Lauries and Villafanas involvement they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta Under OPRs analytical framework an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional misconduct Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include but is not limited to the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor In this regard OPRs framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyers reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty See e.g FRPC Therefore in addition to the fact that OPR did not find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below OPR concludes that Menchel Sloman Lourie and Villafana did not commit professional misconduct with respect to any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acostas direction and with his approval I OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR STANDARD OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY IN NEGOTIATING APPROVING OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of the subjects in developing negotiating or entering into the NPA violated any clear and unambiguous standard established by rule regulation or policy OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard OPR considered three specific areas standards implicated by the decision to decline a federal court prosecution standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal investigation through a non-prosecution agreement and standards implicated by any of the NP As provisions including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties As discussed below OPR concludes that in each area and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences the U.S Attorney possessed broad discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit authority that he could delegate to subordinates and that Acostas exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous standard As a result OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate attorney has not acted in good faillt OPR did not find evidence supporting such a concl 1Sion here and Acosta did not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision CA/Aronberg-0602 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM unambiguous standard or engaged in professional misconduct in developing negotiating or entering into the NPA including its addendum A U.S Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deem Appropriate and Acosta 2s Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct The U.S Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation 2s criminal laws.2 As a general matter federal prosecutors 223are designated by statute as the President 2s delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to 221take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed UnitedStates Armstrong U.S quoting U:S Const art IE Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race religion or other arbitrary classification a prosecutor 2s.charging decisions 227including declinations not dictated bylaw of statute and are hot subject to judicial review See United States LaBonle U.S 223Such discretions an integral feature of the criminal justice system and is appropriate so long as it is not based upon improper factors Department policy guidance in effect at the time the USAO was handling the Epstein case helped ensure 223the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority did not require particular prosecutorial decision in any given case USAM comment Ratherthan mandating specific actions the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a prosecutor 2s charging decisions including that the defendant was 223subjectto effective prosecution in another jurisdiction USAM Importantly U.S Attorneys had 223plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters and could modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest,of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts USAM As stated intheUSAM 223the United States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such prosecutive authority which includes the authority to decline prosecution USAM Tn.addition the USAM contemplated that federal prosecutors would sometimes decline federal prosecution in deference to a state prosecution of the same conduct and provided guidance in the form of factors to be considered in making the decision including the strength of the other jurisdiction 2s interest in prosecution the other jurisdiction ability and willingness to prosecute effectively arid the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted in the other jurisdiction USAM A comment to this provision stated that the factors are 223illustrative only and the attorney for the government should also consider any others that appear relevant to hi m/her in a particular case See e.g Wayte U.S at United States Goodwin U.S ri.l.l Bordenkircher U.S at Imbler U;S The discretionary authority under USAM to defer prosecution in favor of,another jurisdiction is distinct from die Petite policy.;whichestablishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on conduct substantially the same as that involved in a prior state or federal proceeding See USAM CA/Aronberg-0603 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I unam_biguous stan_dard or 267engaged il1 professional misconduct in cleveloping negotiating or enteringinto 267theNPA includingitsa_ddendum A U.S Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as They Deei;n Appq pri;tte ancl Acosta.s Derision t9 Decline to Prosec_ute Epstein Feder.ally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct The U.S Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nati criminal laws As a general matter federal prosecutors are designated by statute as the Presidents delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed_,J Unit d.St tes Armstrong sn U.S quoting U:S Const a,rt Ji Unless b,ase_d an impermissible standard such as race religion or other arbitrary classification a prosecutors charging decisions-including decliriations are not dictated by law or statute arid are,hot subject to judicial review See Vited State LdRtite U.S Such discretion is an-integral feature of the criminal justice system and is appropriate s.o long as it is not ba,secf upon i1proper:factors Deparhneht policy guidance in effect atthe time the USAO was handling the Epstein case helped ensure the;reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority but did notrequire a particular prosecutorial decision.in any given case USAM comment Rather than mandating specific actions the 267usAM identified considerations that shol!ld factor into a prosecutor s,charging decisions inciuding that the defendant was subj,ect to.effective prosecution in another jurisdiction USAM Importantly U.S Attorneys.had plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters and could modify or depart from the prindples set forth in the 267-OSAM as 267deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effectivehw enforcement within their individualjudicial 4istriQtSi AM As _stated in 267the USAM 267the United States Attorney is invested by sfatute a11d delegation from the Attorney General w.ithJhe broadest discretion in th exercise of suc:h prosecutive _authority which includes the authority to decline prosecution USAM In addition the USAM contemplated that fecleral prosecl!tors would sometimes decline focieral prosecution in deference to a state prnseQution ofthe same conduct.and proyided guidan,ce in the form of factors to be considered in rnaking the decision including the strength of the other jurisdictions interest in prosecution the otherjuri 225sdictions ability and willingness to prosecute effectively and the probable Sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted i:n the other jurisdicticm SAM A comment to thi_s provisron st 1teg that the fa,ctors are illustrative only an_d the attomeyfor tbe government should aJs9-consider any others that appear relevant to hi m/herin a particular case See e.g Wayte U.S at On/fed Stq es Qoqm11in U.S Ii.U Bordenkircher J.S atJ64 jmbler U:S Tile.discretionary authority 267under USAM to defer proscctition in favor otanothcrjuriSdiction is distinct from tl1e.Petite po!ic NcH _establishes guideiines for the exercise of discretion 1n detennining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on conduct substantially the same as that involved in a prior state or federal proceeding See USAM CA Aronberg-0603 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM As the U.S Attorney and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was motivated by improper factors Acosta had the 223plenary authority under federal law and under the USAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate As discpssed in detail below OPR not find evidence establishing that Acosta or the other subjects were motivated or influenced by improper considerations Because no clear and unambiguous standard required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state OPR does not find misconduct based on Acosta 2s decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta 2s Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein OPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acosta 2s decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement The prosecutor 2s broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism a deferred prosecution agreement United States Fokker Servs F.3d D.C Cir These agreements 223afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when for example it believes that a criminal conviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a defendant or third parties but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability altogether Id at As with all prosecutorial charging decisions the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement 223resides fundamentally with the Executive branch Id at OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a non prosecution agreement in the circumstances presented in Epstein 2s case The USAM specifically authorized and provided guidance regarding non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution agreements made in exchange for a person 2s timely cooperation when such cooperation would put the person in potential criminal jeopardy and when alternatives to full immunity such as testimonial immunity were 223impossible or impracticable USAM comment The 223cooperation contemplated was cooperation in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another person In certain circumstances government attorneys were required to obtain approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General before entering into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for cooperation Epstein however was not providing 223cooperation as contemplated by the USAM and the USAM was silent as to whether a prosecutor could use a non-prosecution agreement in circumstances other than in exchange for cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of another Notably although the USAM provided guidance and approval requirements in cases involving cooperation the USAM did not prohibit the use of a non-prosecution agreement in other situations Accordingly OPR concludes that the USAM did not establish a clear and unambiguous obligation prohibiting Acosta from ending the federal investigation through a non-prosecution USAM required that non-prosecution agreements in exchange for cooperation be fully memorialized in writing Although this requirement was not applicable for tire reasons given above the NPA complied by fully memorializing the terms of the agreement I CA/Aronberg-0604 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM As the U.S Attorney and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was motivated by improper factors Acosta had the plenary authority under fed ral law and under the I USAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate As disc,ussed in detail below OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta or the other subjects were motivated or influenced by improper considerations Because no clear and unambiguous standard required Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state OPR does not find misconduct based on Acostas decision to decline to initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acostas Use of a Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein OPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acostas decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement The prosecutors broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism a deferred prosecution agreement United States Fokker Servs F.3d D.C Cir These agreements afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when for example it believes that a criminal conviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a defendant or third parties but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability altogether id at As with all prosecutorial charging decisions the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement resides fundamentally with the Executive branch Id at OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a non prosecution agreement in the circumstances presented in Epsteins case The USAM specifically authorized and provided guidance regarding non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution agreements made in exchange for a persons timely cooperation when such cooperation would put the person in potential criminal jeopardy and when alternatives to full immunity such as testimonial immunity were impossible or impracticable USAM comment The cooperation contemplated was cooperation in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another person In certain circumstances government attorneys were required to obtain approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General before entering into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for cooperation Epstein however was not providing cooperation as contemplated by the USAM and the USAM was silent as to whether a prosecutor could use a non-prosecution agreement in circumstances other than in exchange for cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of another Notably although the USAM provided guidance and approval requirements in cases involving cooperation the USAM did not prohibit the use of a non-prosecution agreement in other situations Accordingly OPR concludes that the USAM did not establish a clear and unambiguous obligation prohibiting Acosta from ending the federal investigation through a non-prosecution USAM required that non-prosecution agreements in exchange lfor cooperation be fully memorialized in writing AU110ugh Ulis requirement was nor applicable for U1e reasons giveil above the NP A complied by fully memorializing the terms of U1e agreement CA/Aronberg-0604 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I agreement that not require Epstein 2s cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain Departmental approval before doing so The NPA 2s Individual Provisions Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards Although Acosta as U.S Attorney had discretion generally to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state OPR also considered whether a clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA Specifically OPR examined Acosta 2s decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and solicitation to prostitution with a joint binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of incarceration Because as noted above OPR found no clear guidance applicable to non prosecution agreements not involving cooperation OPR examined Departmental policies relating to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA 2s charge and sentence requirements OPR also examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein 2s unidentified 223potential co-conspirators to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity Finally OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the Department 2s policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens which would have required further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals After considering the applicable rules and policies OPR finds that Acosta 2s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea and through the terms that he chose Accordingly OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct in developing negotiating or approving the NPA nor did the other subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution.206 Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a plea agreement including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific predetermined sentence USAM see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure OPR also considered whether Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a client Attorneys have a duty to provide competent diligent representation to their clients which generally requires Ilie legal knowledge skill thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation See e.g FRPC The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise 223zeal in advocating for the client but docs not require tire attorney press for every advantage that might be realized for a client See FRPC comment Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO 2s investigation of Epstein those decisions even if flawed did not violate tire standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence The subjects exliibited sufficient knowledge skill preparation thoroughness and zeal during the federal investigation and Ilie NPA negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules An attorney may attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence tliroughout the representation to meet the requirements of the standard CA/Aronberg-0605 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM agreement that did not require Epsteins cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain Departmental approval before doing so The NPAs Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards Although Acosta as U.S Attorney had discretion generally to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state OPR also considered whether a clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA Specifically OPR examined Acostas decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and solicitation to prostitution with a joint binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of incarceration Because as noted above OPR found no clear guidance applicable to non prosecution agreements not involving cooperation OPR examined Departmental policies relating to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NP As charge and sentence requirements OPR also examined the provision declining to prosecute Epsteins unidentified potential co-conspirators to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity Finally OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the Departments policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens which would have required further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals After considering the applicable rules and policies OPR finds that Acostas decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NP A did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea and through the terms that he chose Accordingly OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct in developing negotiating or approving the NP A nor did the other subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a plea agreement including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific predetermined sentence USAM see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure OPR also considered whether Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring tl1at attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a client Attorneys have a duty to provide competent diligent representation to their clients which generally requires tl1e legal knowledge skill thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation See e.g FRPC The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise zeal in advocating for the client but docs not require the attorney to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client See FRPC conunent Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAOs investigation of Epstein those decisions even if flawed did not violate tl1e standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence The subjects exhibited sufficient knowledge skill preparation tl1orouglmess and zeal during the federal investigation and tl1e NP A negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by tl1e professional responsibility rules An attorney may attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence tlrroughout the representation to meet tl1e requirements of the standard CA/Aronberg-0605 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant 2s criminal conduct that has an adequate factual basis is likely to result in a sustainable conviction makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others See USAM comment The genesis of this policy the Ashcroft Memo specifically requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines However the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important exception a U.S Attorney or a 223designated supervisory attorney may authorize a plea that does not comport with this policy.207 Moreover the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not 223readily provable if the prosecutor harbors good faith doubt based on either the law or the evidence as to the government 2s ability to prove the charge at trial By its plain terms the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the 223most serious readily provable charge requirement The draft indictment prepared by Villafana proposed charging Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors and Epstein 2s sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of to months imprisonment The original 223term sheet presented to the defense proposed a 223non negotiable requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses in addition to the original state indictment with a joint binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration Instead Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to state indictment and only one additional state offense and an 18-month sentence As discussed more fully later in this Report Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafana outlined in the prosecution memorandum and identified for OPR concerns both the evidence and legal theories on which a federal prosecution would be premised On the other hand Villafana felt strongly that federal charges should be brought and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice opined that the charges were appropriate OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable however because Acosta had In addition to specified 223Limited Exceptions this authorization is available in 223Other Exceptional Circumstances as follows Prosecutors may decline to pursue or may dismiss readily provable charges in other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General United States Attorney or designated supervisory attorney This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing Reform Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the federal criminal justice system For example a case-specific approval to dismiss charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorneys Office is particularly over-burdened the duration of the trial would be exceptionally long and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases disposed of by the office However such case-by-case exceptions should be rare otherwise the goals of fairness and equity will be jeopardized I Ashcroft Memo at See also USAM and U.S Attorneys authority to depart from the USAM i i CA/Aronberg-0606 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of thJ defendants criminal conduct that has an adequate factual basis is likely to result in a sustaina le conviction makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order and lobs not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others See USAM comment The genesis of this policy the Ashcroft Memo specifically requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines However the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important exception a U.S Attorney or a designated supervisory attorney may authorize a plea that does not comport with this policy Moreover the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not readily provable if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt based on either the law or the evidence as to the governments ability to prove the charge at trial By its plain terms the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the most serious readily provable charge requirement The draft indictment prepared by Villafana proposed charging Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors and Epsteins sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of to months imprisonment The original term sheet presented to the defense proposed a non negotiable requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses in a,ddition to the original state indictment with a joint binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration Instead Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state indictment and only one additional state offense and an 18-month sentence As discussed more fully later in this Report Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafana outlined in the prosecution memorandum and identified for OPR concerns with both the evidence and legal theories on which a federal prosecution would be premised On the other hand Villafana felt strongly that federal charges should be brought and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice opined that the charges were appropriate OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable however because Acosta had In addition to specified Limited Exceptions this authorization is available in Other Exceptional Circwnstanccs as follows Prosecutors may decline to pursue or may dismiss readily provable charges in other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General United States Attorney or designated supervisory attorney This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing Refonn Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the federal criminal justice system For example a case-specific approval to dismiss charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorneys Office is particularly over-burdened the duration of the trial would be exceptionally long and proceeding lo trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases disposed of by the office However such case-by-case exceptions should be rare othenvise the goals of fairness and equity will be jeopardized I Ashcroft Memo al See also USAM and U.S Attorneys a tl1orily lo depart from the USAM CA/Aronberg-0606 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo 2s 223most serious readily provable offense requirement Although Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to allow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet or how or by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to months Acosta was aware of these changes He reviewed and approved the final NPA before it was signed Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement notwithstanding any arguable failure to comply with the 223most serious readily provable offense requirement Furthermore the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S Attorney from deferring to a state prosecution so it is not clear that the Memo 2s terms apply to a situation involving state charges Accordingly OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein to resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did not violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional misconduct The USAO 2s Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified 223Potential Co-Conspirators Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy Several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government 2s agreement not to prosecute unidentified 223potential co-conspirators amounted to 223transactional immunity the witnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy Although 223use immunity protects a witness only against the government 2s use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness and is frequently used by prosecutors transactional immunity protects a witness from prosecution altogether and is relatively rare OPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity One section of the USAM related to immunity but applied only to the exchange of 223use immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege See USAM el seq Statutory provisions relating to immunity also address the same context See U.S.C U.S.C Moreover apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns courts have not suggested that a prosecutor 2s promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion See e.g Marquez F.2d at Kemp F.2d at Stinson So 2d at Frazier So 2d OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that was violated by the USAO 2s agreement not to prosecute 223potential co-conspirators and therefore cannot conclude that negotiating or approving this provision violated a clear and unambiguous standard or constituted professional misconduct Notwithstanding this finding in Section IV of this Part OPR includes in its criticism of Acosta 2s decision to approve the NPA his approval of this provision without considering its potential consequences including to whom it would apply CA/Aronberg-0607 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memos most senous readily provable offense requirement Although Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to allow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet or how or by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to months Acosta was aware of these changes He reviewed and approved the final NP A before it was signed Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement notwithstanding any arguable failure to comply with the most serious readily provable offense requirement Furthermore the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S Attorney from deferring to a state prosecution so it is not clear that the Memos terms apply to a situation involving state charges Accordingly OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein to resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did not violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional misconduct The USAOs Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified Potential Co-Conspirators Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous Department Policy Several witnesses told OPR that they believed the governments agreement not to prosecute unidentified potential co-conspirators amounted to transactional immunity which the witnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy Although use immunity protects a witness only against the governments use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness and is frequently used by prosecutors transactional immunity protects a witness from prosecution altogether and is relatively rare OPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity One section of the USAM related to immunity but applied only to the exchange of use immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege See USAM et seq Statutory provisions relating to immunity also address the same context See U.S.C U.S.C Moreover apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns courts have not suggested that a prosecutors promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion See e.g Marquez F.2d at Kemp F.2d at Stinson So 2d at Frazier So 2d OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that was violated by the USAOs agreement not to prosecute potential co-conspirators and therefore cannot conclude that negotiating or approving this provision violated a clear and unambiguous standard or constituted professional misconduct Notwithstanding this finding in Section IV of this Part OPR includes in its criticism of Acostas decision to approve the NPA his approval of this provision without considering its potential consequences including to whom it would apply CA/Aronberg-0607 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens During the negotiations the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the USAO from 223requesting initiating or in any way encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two female assistants However OPR considered whether the April memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epstein 2s two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals Villafana urged in her prosecution memorandum 227and thus trigger their removal or conversely whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard The Attorney General 2s April memorandum regarding 223Deportation of Criminal Aliens directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States and along with USAM provided that 223all deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist However Epstein 2s two assistants were not 223deportable unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions The policy guidance also requires 223prompt and close coordination with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages Moreover because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants who in any event had not been charged and were therefore not 223defendants no further notification was required IV THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN OPR investigated whether any of the subjects 227Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana 227was influenced by corruption bias or other improper motive such as Epstein 2s wealth status or political associations to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation OPR considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO 2s July 223term sheet and Acosta 2s approval of the NPA in September OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences including the subjects preexisting relationships with defense counsel the subjects numerous meetings with Epstein 2s team of nationally known attorneys emails between the subjects 227particularly Villafana 227and defense counsel that appeared friendly casual and deferential to defense counsel and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining CA/Aronberg-0608 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens During the negotiations the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the USAO from requesting initiating or in any way encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigration proceedings against two female assistants However OPR considered whether the April memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute Epsteins two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals-as Villafana urged in her prosecution memorandum-and thus trigger their removal or conversely whether it precluded the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution OPR found nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard The Attorney Generals April memorandum regarding Deportation of Criminal Aliens directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States and along with USAM provided that all deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist However Epsteins two assistants were not deportable unless and until convicted of a crime that would have triggered their removal But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions The policy guidance also requires prompt and close coordination with immigration officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants OPR learned during its investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages Moreover because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants who in any event had not been charged and were therefore not defendants no further notification was required IV THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN OPR investigated whether any of the subjects-Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana-was influenced by corruption bias or other improper motive such as Epsteins wealth status or political associations to include terms in the NP A that were favorable to Epstein or whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation OPR considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAOs July term sheet and Acostas approval of the NPA in September OPR also thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were motivated by improper influences including the subjects preexisting relationships with defense counsel the subjects numerous meetings with Epsteins team of nationally known attorneys emails between the subjects-particularly Villafana-and defense counsel t;hat appeared friendly casual and deferential to defense counsel and inclusion in the NP A of a broad provision declining CA/Aronberg-0608 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I to prosecute all of Epstein 2s co-conspirators These factors are analyzed in the following discussions throughout this Section of the Report As a threshold matter OPR 2s investigation of the subjects decisions and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery gratuity or illegal political or personal consideration In addition OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record interviewed witnesses and questioned the subject attorneys The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acosta 2s decision to resolve the case through the NPA The first main concern to Acosta 227involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority The second arose from an assessment by Acosta 2s senior advisers 227Sloman Menchel and Lourie 227that the case carried substantial litigation risks including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case.208 The third was Acosta 2s aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein 2s conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state Although the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized as OPR does OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations such as Epstein 2s wealth status or associations That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige skill and extensive experience in federal and state criminal and in conducting negotiations He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis as well as multiple in-person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel He assembled a defense team well versed in the USAO and the Department with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department 2s various levels and offices a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used even by those familiar with the Department 2s hierarchy Access to highly skilled and prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other white collar defendants but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses Nonetheless while recognizing that Epstein 2s wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein 2s benefit by improper factors A OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption Such as Bribery Gratuity or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration Some public criticism of the USAO 2s handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subjects decisions or actions may have-472 been motivated by criminal corruption although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified Throughout its investigation Sloinan asserted throughout Iris OPR interview that he did not participate in substantive discussions about the Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed and Iris attorney argued in liis continents on OPR 2s draft report tliat OPR should not attribute to Sloinan any input in Acosta 2s decisions about how to resolve the case However Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation participated in meetings with the defense team and according to Acosta was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation I CA/Aronberg-0609 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I to prosecute all of Epsteins co-conspirators These factors are analyted the following discussions throughout this Section of the Report As a threshold matter OPRs investigation of the subjects decisiJns and actions in the Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery gratuity or illegal political or personal consideration In addition OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary record interviewed witnesses and questioned the subject attorneys The evidence shows three sets of issues influenced Acostas decision to resolve the case through the NP A The first-of main concern to Acosta-involved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority The second arose from an assessment by Acostas senior advisers-Sloman Menchel and Lourie-that the case carried substantial litigation risks including both witness issues and what some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case The third was Acostas aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epsteins conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state Although the NP A and the process for reaching it can be criticized as OPR does OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations such as Epsteins wealth status or associations That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous wealth He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige skill and extensive experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations He had the resources to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis as well as multiple in-person meetings involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel He assembled a defense team well versed in the USAO and the Department with the knowledge to maneuver through the Departments various levels and offices a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently used even by those familiar with the Departments hierarchy Access to highly skilled and prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or certain other white collar defendants but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes or violent offenses Nonetheless while recognizing that Epsteins wealth played a role in the outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys OPR concludes that the subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epsteins benefit by improper factors A OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption Such as Bribery Gratuity or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration Some public criticism of the USAOs handling of the Epstein matter implied that the subjects decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption although no specific information substantiating such implications was identified Throughout its investigation Sloman asserted throughout his OPR interview Uiat he did not participate in substantive discussions about U1e Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed and his atlomey argued in his comments on OPRs draft report Uiat OPR should not attribute lo Sloman any input in Acostas decisions about how to 1solve U1e case However Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to U1e investigation participated in meetings wiU1 the defense team and according to Acosta was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation CA/Aronberg-0609 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes gratuities or other illegal political or personal considerations and found no such indication.209 Witnesses including law enforcement officials were specifically asked whether they had any information indicating such corruption and all 227notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein matter 2s outcome 227stated that they did not Specifically the FBI case agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence and that if she had perceived any she 223would have gone screaming to the FBI 2s public corruption unit The co-case agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence and that any such indication would immediately have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epstein 2s Status Wealth or Associations Although Epstein 2s name is now nationally recognized in and he was not a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned of the investigation they had not heard of Epstein Similarly the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein However news reports about Epstein 2s July arrest on the state indictment which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts including William Clinton Donald Trump Kevin Spacey and Alan Dershowitz and other 223prominent businessmen academics and scientists Villafana Lourie Sloman and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures.211 The FBI case agent also told OPR that knew who had been on his plane we knew some of his connections The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors such as Epstein 2s wealth or influential connections Epstein 2s legal team overtly raised Epstein 2s financial status in arguing for a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment on the ground that Epstein would be extorted in prison but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration Defense counsel mentioned former President Clinton in one pre-NPA letter but that reference was made in the context of a OPR 2s jurisdiction does not extend to Hie investigation of allegations of criminal activity If OPR had found indication of criminal activity it would have referred the matter to the appropriate Department investigative agencies Larry Keller 223Billionaire solicited prostitutes three times indictment says Palm Beach Post July Nicole Janok 223Consultant to tire rich indicted jailed Palm Beach Post July Lourie later made Menchel aware of Epstein 2s prominence in the course of forwarding to Menchel the initial prosecution memorandum CA/Aronberg-0610 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes gratuities or other illegal political or personal considerations and found no such indication Witnesses including law enforcement officials were specifically asked whether they had any information indicating such corruption and all-notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same witnesses of the Epstein matters outcome-stated that they did not Specifically the FBI case agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence and that if she had perceived any she would have gone screaming to the FBIs public coITUption unit The co-case agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence and that any such indication would immediately have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly Influenced by Epsteins Status Wealth or Associations Although Epsteins name is now nationally recognized in and he was not a familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida All five subjects told OPR that when they first learned of the investigation they had not heard of Epstein Similarly the FBI case agent told OPR that when the investigation began no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of Epstein and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein However news reports about Epsteins July arrest on the state indictment which were contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts including William Clinton Donald Trump Kevin Spacey and Alan Dershowitz and other prominent businessmen academics and scientists Villafana Lourie Sloman and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation and thus understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures The FBI case agent also told OPR that we knew who had been on his plane we knew some of his connections The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors such as Epsteins wealth or influential connections Epsteins legal team overtly raised Epsteins financial status in arguing for a sentence that did not include a term of imprisonment on the ground that Epstein would be extorted in prison but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration Defense counsel mentioned former President Clinton in one pre-NPA letter but that reference was made in the context of a OPRs jurisdiction does not extend to t11e investigation of allegations of criminal activity If OPR had fow1d indication of criminal activity it would have referred t11e matter to the appropriate Department im,estigative agencies Larry Keller Billionaire solicited prostitutes three ti1nes indicunent says Pa/1 Beach Post July Nicole Janok Consultant to t11e rich indicted jailed Palm Beach Post July Lourie later made Menchel aware of Epsteins prominence in the course of forwar;ding to Menchel the initial prosecution memorandum CA/Aronberg-061 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM narrative of Epstein 2s philanthropic activities rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein 2s association to the former President warranted leniency and in any case the USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state 2s discretion.212 The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein 2s connection to former President Clinton but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and signed and in it counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President.213 The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations Not Improper Influences In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence OPR questioned the five subject attorneys all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein 2s wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA or in negotiating the NPA Villafana in particular was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorney 2s Office and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein 2s possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epstein 2s tactics Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy high-profile defendants before including the Abramoff case Acosta told OPR tried to treat the case fairly not looking at how wealthy is he but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy Menchel expressed a similar view telling OPR that he not believe 2s appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other Lourie told OPR that Epstein 2s status may have generated more 223front office involvement in the case but it did not affect the outcome and Sloman 223emphatically disagreed with the suggestion that the USAO 2s handling of the case had been affected by Epstein 2s wealth or influential connections Other witnesses corroborated the subjects testimony on this point including the FBI case agents who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth The CEOS Chief told OPR that he not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth and influence OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations Of more significance and as discussed more fully below was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subjects assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also In the pre-NPA letter to the USAO counsel recited a litany of Epstein 2s purported good deeds and charitable works including a trip Epstein took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS and counsel also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as committed pliilantliropist In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been 223politically motivated due to Epstein 2s 223close personal association with former President Bill Clinton OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors that influenced Acosta 2s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA Sloman Menchel Lourie and Villafana all had long careers with the Department and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with i CA/Aronberg-0611 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I narrative of Epsteins philanthropic activities rather than presented as a suggestion that Epsteins association to the former President warranted leniency and in any case USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the states discretion The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epsteins connection to former President Clinton but that submission was made well after the NP A was negotiated and signed and in it counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations Not Improper Influences In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence OPR questioned the five subject attorneys all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epsteins wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA or in negotiating the NPA Villafana in particular was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorneys Office and she proactively took steps to counter Epsteins possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epsteins tactics Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy high-profile defendants before including the Abramoff case Acosta told OPR We tried to treat the case fairly not looking at how wealthy is he but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy Menchel expressed a similar view telling OPR that he did not believe its appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other Lourie told OPR that Epsteins status may have generated more front office involvement in the case but it did not affect the outcome and Sloman emphatically disagreed with the suggestion that the USA Os handling of the case had been affected by Epsteins wealth or influential connections Other witnesses corroborated the subjects testimony on this point including the FBI case agents who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth and influence OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations Of more significance and as discussed more fully below was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subjects assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations OPR also In the pre-NP A letter to the USAO counsel recited a litany of Epsteins purported good deeds and charitable works including a trip Epstein took to Africa with fonner President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS and counsel also noted that the fonner President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as a committed philanthropist In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been politically motivated due to Epsteins close personal association with former President Bill Clinton OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors that influenced Acostas decision to resolve the federal investigation tluough the NP A Slo1an Menchel Lourie and Villafana all had long careers with the Department and OPR considers it unlikely that they vould all have joined with CA/Aronberg-0611 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM considered that the USAO 2s most pivotal decisions resolve the case through an NPA requiring Epstein to serve time in jail register as a sexual offender and provide monetary damages to victims 227had been made by July when the USAO presented its 223term sheet to the defense This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had not indicated any plans to do so It also was well before Acosta 2s October breakfast meeting with defense counsel Lefkowitz which received strong public and media criticism OPR also considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course of negotiating the final NPA the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end federal involvement altogether and return the matter to state authorities to handle as they saw fit and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender despite a strong push by the defense that it do so Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence Legal Theories Litigation Risk and a Trial 2s Potential Impact on Victims Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for Acosta 2s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA but they and Villafafia identified for OPR several case-specific factors unrelated to Epstein 2s wealth or associations that either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely influenced Acosta 2s decision-making These considerations included assessment of the evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims For the most part however these factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the case through a pre-charge disposition but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation through a guilty plea in state court That decision appears to have stemmed from Acosta 2s concerns about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement authorities In a declaration submitted to the district court in in connection with the CVRA litigation Villafaha explained the USAO 2s rationale for terminating the federal investigation through the NPA Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in negotiations with Epstein 2s counsel I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case with members of the Office 2s management and informed them that most of the victims had expressed significant concerns about having their identities disclosed It is my understanding from these and other discussions that these factors that is the various strengths and weaknesses of the case and the various competing interests of the many different victims including the privacy concerns expressed by many together with the Office 2s desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected that Acosta or any of their colleagues was motivated by improper influences CA/Aronberg-0612 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I considered that the USAOs most pivotal decisions-to resolve the case thro an NPA requiring Epstein to serve time in jail register as a sexual offender and provide monetary damages to victims-had been made by July when the USAO presented it term sheet to the defense This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and whe he had not indicated any plans to do so It also was well before Acostas October breakfast meeting with defense counsel Lefkowitz which received strong public and media criticism OPR also considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course of negotiating the final NP A the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end federal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw fit and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender despite a strong push by the defense that it do so Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence Legal Theories Litigation Risk and a Trials Potential Impact on Victims Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for Acostas decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA but they and Villafana identified for OPR several case-specific factors unrelated to Epsteins wealth or associations that either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely influenced Acostas decision-making These considerations included assessment of the evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims For the most part however these factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the case through a pre-charge disposition but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation through a guilty plea in state court That decision appears to have stemmed from Acostas concerns about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement authorities In a declaration submitted to the district court in in connection with the CVRA litigation Villafana explained the USAOs rationale for terminating the federal investigation through the NP A Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in negotiations with Epsteins counsel I discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the case with members of the Offices management and informed them that most of the victims had expressed significant concerns about having their identities disclosed It is my understanding from these and other discussions that these factors that is the various strengths and weaknesses of the case and the various competing interests of the many different victims including the privacy concerns expressed by many together with the Offices desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence of incarceration for Epstein the equivalent ofuncontested restitution for the victims Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected tl Acosta or any of their colleagues was motivated by improper influences CA/Aronberg-0612 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein were among the factors that led to the During her OPR interview Villafana similarly described the victims general reluctance to go forward with a trial When we would meet with victims we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify They were very worried about their privacy rights.216 In his written response to OPR Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall the issues Villafana set forth in her declaration he believed they would been important to the USAO in Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about the charges and a potential trial My vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on appeal after a conviction resulting in no jail time no criminal Doe United States No S.D Fla Declaration of A Marie Villafana in Support of Government 2s Response and Opposition to Petitioners Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment at June These concerns are also reflected in a declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation in which she stated 223During interviews conducted from to no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted She further described the concerns of some of the victims Throughout the investigation we interviewed many of Epstein 2s victims A majority of the victims expressed concern about tire possible disclosure of their identities to the public A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr Epstein Additionally for some victims learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused emotional distress Overall many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us Our concerns about tire victims well-being and getting to tire truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation In addition during the CVRA litigation an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect Ilie anonymity of Iris clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners See Response to Court Order of July and United States Notice of Partial Compliance July It is noteworthy that in when OPR attempted to contact victims through their counsel for interviews or responses to written questions regarding contacts with tire USAO OPR was informed tlwt most of the victims were still deeply concerned about remaining anonymous One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when during the USAO 2s investigation lire FBI left a business card at her parents home and as a result her parents learned that she was a victim of Epstein At the time tire victim was a teenager was 223nervous scared and ashamed and did not want her parents to know about the case CA/Aronberg-0613 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein were among the factors that led to the NP A During her OPR interview Villafana similarly described the victims general reluctance to go forward with a trial When we would meet with victims we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify They were very worried about their privacy rights In his written response to OPR Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall the issues Villafana set forth in her declaration he believed they would have been important to the USAO in Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about the charges and a potential trial My vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on appeal after a conviction resulting in no jail time no criminal Doe United States No S.D Fla Declaration of A Marie Villafana in Support of Governments Response and Opposition to Petitioners Motion for Partial Swmnary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Smmnary Judgment at June These concerns are also reflected in a declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation in which she stated During interviews conducted from to no victims ex-pressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted She further described the concerns of some of the victims Throughout the investigation we interviewed many of Epsteins victims A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr Epstein Additionally for some victims learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress Overall many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us Our concerns about the victims well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the imestigation In addition during the CVRA litigation an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect U1e anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of U1eir identities to the CVRA petitioners See Response to Court Order of July and United States Notice of Partial Compliance July It is noteworthy that in when OPR attempted to contact victims through their counsel for interviews or responses to written questions regarding contacts wiU1 U1e USAO OPR was informed that most of the victims were still deeply concerned about remaining anonymous One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when during the USAOs investigation U1e FBI left a business card at her parents home and as a result her parents learned that she was a victim of Epstein At the time U1e victim was a teenager was ne1vous scared and ashamed and did not want her parents to know about the case CA/Aronberg-0613 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM record no restitution no sex offender status publication at a trial of the names of certain victims that didn 2t want their names revealed and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their families Although his emails showed that at the time he advocated for prosecution of Epstein Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that 223everybody at the US AO working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles as well as issues with the cooperation and desires of the victims Similarly Menchel 227who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes 227recalled understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced additional trauma as a result of a trial and some had made statements exonerating Epstein Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein Epstein would have elected to go to trial In Menchel 2s view the USAO therefore had to weigh the risk of losing at trial and thereby re-traumatizing the victims against the benefits gained through a negotiated result which ensured that Epstein served time in jail registered as a sexual offender and made restitution to his victims Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the government 2s legal theories He told OPR I seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to be reliable You had a tranche of witnesses who were going to be severely impeached People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who thought he was a Svengali who were going to say I told him I was years old You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light being shown on them because their parents didn 2t even know had very vulnerable victims You had all of these concerns Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case all of which factored into the resolution He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not 223granular and not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim 2s expected testimony but he trusted that his 223team had already 223done the diligence necessary to make recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case Acosta recalled discussing the facts with Sloman and Menchel and possibly Lourie none of whom had as detailed an understanding of the facts as Villafana Nevertheless OPR credits Acosta 2s statement that he reasonably believed based on his conversations with others who expressed this view that a trial would pose significant evidentiary challenges Other witnesses corroborated the subjects testimony regarding witness challenges including the FBI co-case agent who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims had expressed concern for their safety and lot of them didn 2t want to take the stand and CA/Aronberg-0614 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM record no restitution no sex offender status publication at a trial of the names of certain victims that didnt want their names revealed and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their families Although his emails showed that at the time he advocated for prosecution of Epstein Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that everybody at the USAO working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles as well as issues with the cooperation and desires of the victims Similarly Menchel-who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes-recalled understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced additional trauma as a result of a trial and some had made statements exonerating Epstein Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein Epstein would have elected to go to trial In Menchels view the USAO therefore had to weigh the risk of losing at trial and thereby re-traumatizing the victims against the benefits gained through a negotiated result which ensured that Epstein served time in jail registered as a sexual offender and made restitution to his victims Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the governments legal theories He told OPR It seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to be reliable You had a tranche of witnesses who were going to be severely impeached People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who thought he was a Svengali who were going to say I told him I was years old You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light being shown on them because their parents didnt even know had very vulnerable victims You had all of these concerns Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case all of which factored into the resolution He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not granular and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victims expected testimony but he trusted that his team had already done the diligence necessary to make recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case Acosta recalled discussing the facts with Sloman and Menchel and possibly Lourie none of whom had as detailed an understanding of the facts as Villafana Nevertheless OPR credits Acostas statement that he reasonably believed based on his conversations with others who expressed this view that a trial would pose significant evidentiary challenges Other witnesses corroborated the subjects testimony regarding witness challenges including the FBI co-case agent who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims had expressed concern for their safety and a lot of them didnt want to take the stand and CA/Aronberg-0614 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM didn 2t want to have to relive what happened to them The co-case agent told OPR that one of the 223strategies for dealing with the victims fear was keep them off the stand and he generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the victims identities In addition the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafafia on the case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims she formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that 223the victims would have testified but would have required an extensive amount of 223victim management because they were 223deeply embarrassed about potentially being labeled as prostitutes The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that 223there were obvious weaknesses in the case from an evidentiary perspective.218 The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of or references to various legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case For example in an early email to Menchel Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafafia 2s proposed charges were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts and the fact that some minor victims had told Epstein they were He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that 223there is some risk on some of the statutes proposed in Villafafia 2s prosecution memorandum as this is uncharted territory to some degree In his July email to Villafafia Menchel cited Acosta 2s and Sloman 2s 223concerns about taking this case because of the Petit policy and a number of legal issues and Acosta 2s concerns about 223hurting Project Safe Childhood Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO Defense submissions attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have undermined victims credibility including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages Acosta also recalled that although his 223team had expressed concern about the 223trial issues his own focus had been on 223the legal side of things Notably during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department 2s Civil Rights Division Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking He told OPR that one of the 223background issues that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership and which influenced his view of the Epstein case was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution Specifically he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially unfavorable federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution which was traditionally a matter of state concern and sex trafficking which remained a developing area of federal interest in In an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation the co-case agent noted that in early when he located a victim living outside of the United States she claimed only to 223know Jeffrey Epstein and stated that she 223moved away to distance herself from this situation and 223asked that the agent not bother her with this again In April a victim who was represented by an attorney paid by Epstein participated in a video-recorded interview with the FBI with her attorney and liis investigator present Tliis victim denied being involved in or being a victim of criminal activity Later the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as 223Jane Doe In his March letter addressed whom it may concern and published online in The Daily Beast Acosta described year-long assault on tire prosecution and the prosecutors by army of legal superstars Most of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after tire NPA was signed and certainly after Acosta approved CA/Aronberg-0615 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM didnt want to have to relive what happened to them The co-case agent told OPR that one of the strategies for dealing with the victims fear was to keep them off the stand and he generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the victims identities In addition the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafana on the case after the NP A was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims she formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that the victims would have testified but would have required an extensive amount of victim management because they were deeply embarrassed about potentially being labeled as prostitutes The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that there were obvious weaknesses in the case from an evidentiary perspective The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of or references to various legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case For example in an early email to Menchel Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafanas proposed charges were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts and the fact that some minor victims had told Epstein they were He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that there is some risk on some of the statutes proposed in Villafana prosecution memorandum as this is uncharted territory to some degree In his July email to Villafana Menchel cited Acostas and Slomans concerns about taking this case because of the Petit policy and a number of legal issues and Acostas concerns about hurting Project Safe Childhood Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO Defense submissions attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have undermined victims credibility including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages Acosta also recalled that although his team had expressed concern about the trial issues his own focus had been on the legal side of things Notably during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Departments Civil Rights Division Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking He told OPR that one of the background issues that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership and which influenced his view of the Epstein case was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution Specifically he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially unfavorable federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution which was traditionally a matter of state concern and sex trafficking which remained a developing area of federal interest in In an affidavit filed in t11c CVRA litigation the co-case agent noted tlial in early when he localed a victim living outside of the nitcd States she claimed only to know Jeffrey Epstein and stated that she moved away to distance herself from this situation and asked that the agent not botl1cr her with tllis again In April a victi1n vho vas represented by an attorney paid by Epstein participated in a video-recorded intc1vicw with the FBI wit11 her attorney and Ii.is investigator present This victim dc11icd being involved in or being a victim of criminal activity Later the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as Jane Doc In Ii.is March I letter addressed To whom it may concern and published onlinc in The Dai Beast Acosta described a year-long assault on tl1c prosecution and the prosecutors by an army of legal superstars Most of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after the NP A was signed and certainly after Acosta approved CA/Aronberg-0615 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM X,?yd 8j P?S?k k2 gRͳ1 Rf!D h)P.P ϊ?H a a i a 3C A B?A4 i??C M4 i?a Q7?oD?跢p Vk?5溄 H?㑺A H??i n?M??mޟIեo??Dݢ?q GI r8 nE??N M?Jɡ6?VФ?M m?;h dw?I?ɡ7ON zW?zk v?W?z?n?괇 Cӏ a??W?z a a A Lk i Q??r?Æ Q??Q j?t?z?P?n f?붾?jc KW?K?K?t?l?t i?i:?o i?K??K?i_?ڧa A 5o?o?m 1?v?놾?XO lU?A?Wt?i6?gͿ?6 b?Mھ i?5N?Lpa M?o b?J?w?S iqv?A QI?V?lR I??i M?P??MSi qM N鄞?V?4?P T?iŦ?Z a4 V?Z MB M4 4F A a D0Ery_D?0 hD0A i M?J J?H a yn pL?I MV LU?K xP?v??w?4?wvL t??N?G?q?EZ td A??D a A N?xA??i A ap?KL zi i?g j??CN?0??CT?SD SM P?CO z?Ƴi?vд?FǢ mT A dx?y,j D??v wE 5E?j.li"wE?a??i d?G it?:O?6?ZI i8hw ii;OON??H pd惠 I6?Id ui i;B W?m k?K m??z?a c?ԟ µ??k Xrk7ߓ 0?Dǰ O?"q i K?K w?P N?t w?VO?Ud?ipK?һ_ ko a ki 1Wlw?Jf??m a?kk n??J i?j?Dv?i S??h a8?ݫ q?I?k a t?i H4?l a a4 A H4?i I??l??M7aD1P
T lE5 i?Tq M6 i4ӊ b??Ȱ A xdn?M?GA A?L h0?D h4 a0?hЃ Rl?i B?a hC P?ƠM?q ޱ?H??-Tgb ڈ?ȱ??L T?E a C?aT"ݕ P?A M?ݠ?ӈwI?v?I i FU?d _ۯ flѹ eFM zE rs!(?H!hB A?gAM a dt A?c 4N h4?m ڃ2 xϐB?a A??i?A?KT Qqo me?D?ˍ H?h Aދ戎 m?a I Ƌ?v i i m?ݑoN??A?4 ӯM 䮓ȷA6 tN??I_l4 4ua V?V z?j?Q?u i m_ mڡ wa w?x/u??V ז7N k?o xrc ߓN??oن oo D?Xa?N??M?F w?D a A a 1_ kt d?m?NQ?P uw??K??T?x nլ?S ڿ?ޟk ҿi??W lW?c k?Si _i wLU??k?a 1Qow j?v v?zm?m1QI LSiم vG z?ڴ??N駱V a Udn h0 i Tu QQ A A a h0?C Z2?r A Ep U?P R?NK ZD?a4Ќ ȷ?"p a MT Ӏ,?d L?pL LS?P?P Tk բlS ڕYrS r?O?ٯ GF?T?fH R?R gA 옉x H?f?B8eX fA?C A ʚR zf??ȹd1?æt 0i 8C I??F L(L i??j 7zŢp?CM ψfF??TBd xA??i?C XM4??7aT 8a A xϖ?4 Zi V?E?B??Dv Gu??h O?ޓmR i p?H M?O_ W??M?o?Ai w?y iڵa7?a6?C?u?N I?N?n o?n k?W u??I??鶒v?J I W?a?lP Ɵ?ﵿk埼1 I P?_Z ps?c_ a u?o c_ K?"q ZOu 7z v?e W?e z?Wuz?O?2 T?k?Ҁ kk _h Uui I??l v_z i?u?R?mH?ƪ?"?մ?ըm m5ҿb??K b?lw 7V ڭ?WlGQP?8?b?dWMmZr J?Ԏ?Oa?j?i4?Y xa l?ىn ݏl i G??M m?ȯmn??N A?Јa0 i m?ӎ4 Ցm a 0D?m E?8ni?dX SL a CM a a n?B2 a a A 7xG2ܨ K?_T??SJ?M B?M 1e zX Q?K aJ?2 uM I hAū??pN pn j??ݓDa m;?Q?臼hE I?Jw 3?W?A?td4n A?R 5ڝ fCvH"B n?a4Mݦ Ţ??h?j 0L MB BmtN(?s y?A G?ƃᓙ 8d?K a0L F?D??i A n?m om M?ᄿ?K?Wi CMP N?A??aӆN??E ݧڦ j?o??p 8a պzI k?k j?k m?z K?w ZU?o ߄M Xƭ _?gݸa a a _u ץ?z?nQ?K _z Gk Kr r?k?WG Kk ۯ??a mv?iK i5N i a_?lT k??k?im?ݱ?Wku iݤ a b?i?G u?m?a1ݗWlS L?š?J?6?ݥi6SA?r m0 M6Ep kP?M4 m?GM QMRi?N A?j A 0L pM4?Nؤ?XUi?lV?4Ȯ 4?hDXB DE Ю?I?V The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary legal and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein Villafana in particular believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial and even after the NPA was negotiated she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment because she continued to have confidence in the case.220 Oosterbaan and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial Furthermore the victims were not a uniform group Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public others wanted Epstein prosecuted but even among those it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial and still others provided information favorable to Epstein Tn the end Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition His determination that a pre-charge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge disposition they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta 2s decision to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July According to Acosta it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney 2s Office to become involved in a state solicitation case even one involving underage teens because solicitation was 223the province of state prosecutors Acosta told OPR that he developed preference for deferring to the state to 223make it clear that the USAO was not stepping on something that is a purely local matter because we didn 2t want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney 2s Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender registration Acosta viewed the USAO 2s role in the case as limited to preventing the 223manifest injustice that in Acosta 2s view would have resulted from the state 2s original plea proposal Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system he would not have viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result but it was adequate to serve as a 223backstop to the state 2s prosecution which he described as polite way of sayingf 221encouraging the state to do a little bit more In sum Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in 223uncharted territory there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be 223weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel and both told OPR that while they did not share Acosta 2s federalism concerns they recalled that Acosta had the terms offered to the defense on July Therefore any allegations against the prosecutors could not have played a significant role in Acosta 2s decisions as reflected in the term sheet Sloman told OPR that Villafana 223always believed in the case CA/Aronberg-0616 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary legal and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein Villafana in particular believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial and even after the NP A was negotiated she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment because she continued to have confidence in the case Oosterbaan and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial Furthermore the victims were not a uniform group Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public others wanted Epstein prosecuted but even among those it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial and still others provided information favorable to Epstein Tn the end Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition His determination that a pre-charge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge disposition they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acostas decision to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July According to Acosta In it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorneys Office to become involved in a state solicitation case even one involving underage teens because solicitation was the province of state prosecutors Acosta told OPR that he developed a preference for deferring to the state to make it clear that the USAO was not stepping on something that is a purely local matter because we didnt want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorneys Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender registration Acosta viewed the USAOs role in the case as limited to preventing the manifest injustice that in Acostas view would have resulted from the states original plea proposal Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system he would not have viewed the terms set out in the NP A as a satisfactory result but it was adequate to serve as a backstop to the states prosecution which he described as a polite way of saying encouraging the state to do a little bit more In sum Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in uncharted territory there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel and both told OPR that while they did not share Acostas federalism concerns they recalled that Acosta had the terms offered to the defense on July Therefore any allegations against the prosecutors could not have played a significant role in Acostas decisions as reflected in the tenn sheet Sloman told OPR that Villafana always believed in the case CNAronberg-0616 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM been concerned about policy and federalism issues.221 Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations he generally recalled that Acosta had been 223sensitive to Petite policy and federalism concerns which Sloman described as whether the USAO was 223overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney 2s Office that was resolved by the State Attorney 2s Office at some level During his OPR interview Menchel remembered that Acosta approached the case from broader policy perspective and was worried about 223the impact that taking the case in federally may have on other programs although Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta 2s decision to offer the July terms was driven by corruption a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein or other improper influences First OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta 2s primary motivation was to benefit Epstein he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages 227outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate Epstein 2s attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case as Epstein 2s counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior Under the state 2s original plan Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation Menchel described such a result as a mere 223slap on the wrist with jail time no felony sex offense no sexual offender registration and no restitution for the victims Instead of acceding to Epstein 2s proposal however the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epstein 2s conduct nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the state 2s original charge standing alone would have done Acosta 2s affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than state had proposed rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.2 Similarly despite defense counsel 2s repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement Acosta refused to Sloman stated that although Acosta 223was sensitive to Petite policy concerns federalism concerns I was not Menchel commented don 2t think it would have been a concern of mine Menchel also pointed out during Iris OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and 223had nothing to gain by showing favoritism to Epstein who had been portrayed in the media as 223tliis big Democratic donor Villafana recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting tliat we were prosecuting Epstein because he was Jewish We then pointed out tliat a number of members of the USAO chain of command were Jewish Then he said well we 2re prosecuting him because he was a Democrat And again we pointed out tliat a number of us were Democrats So then it went to we were prosecuting him because he was wealthy Tliat one didn 2t work so well CA/Aronberg-0617 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM been concerned about policy and federalism issues Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations he generally recalled that Acosta had been sensitive to Petite policy and federalism concerns which Sloman described as whether the USAO was overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorneys Office that was resolved by the State Attorneys Office at some level During his OPR interview Menchel remembered that Acosta approached the case from a broader policy perspective and was worried about the impact that taking the case in federally may have on other programs although Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acostas decision to offer the July terms was driven by corruption a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein or other improper influences First OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acostas primary motivation was to benefit Epstein he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him The NP A required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages-outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate Epsteins attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case as Epsteins counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior Under the states original plan Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation Mench el described such a result as a mere slap on the wrist with no jail time no felony sex offense no sexual offender registration and no restitution for the victims Instead of acceding to Epsteins proposal however the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epsteins conduct nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the states original charge standing alone would have done Acostas affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein Similarly despite defense counsels repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement Acosta refused to Sloman stated that although Acosta was sensitive to Petite policy concerns federnlism concerns I was not Menchel conunented I dont think it would have been a concern of mine Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and had nothing to gain by showing favoritism to Epstein who had been portrayed in the media as this big Democrntic donor Villafana recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that CA/Aronberg-0617 we were prosecuting Epstein because he was Jewish We then pointed out that a nwnber of members of U1e USAO chain of command were Jewish Then he said well were prosecuting him because he was a Democrnt And again we pointed out Uiat a number of us were Democrnts So U1en it went to we were prosecuting him because he was wea!U1y Tliat one didnt work so well FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM reconsider the provision Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein 2s attorneys Second Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA Immediately after signing the agreement he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the Department Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel Epstein 2s dissatisfaction with the NPA and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein 2s benefit OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein In evaluating the subjects conduct OPR considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism bias or other improper motivation The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys Epstein 2s wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case in the State Attorney 2s Office in the USAO and elsewhere in the Department Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein 2s behalf was Guy Lewis a former AUSA in and U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Villafafia and Lourie had worked for Lewis and Lourie was close friends with one of Lewis 2s law partners Epstein also retained Lilly Ann Sanchez a former AUSA who had been Menchel 2s deputy and with whom he had socialized Later when Epstein was seeking Acosta 2s personal involvement in the case Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz prominent attorneys from Kirkland Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm Villafafia told OPR that she believed Acosta 223was influenced by the stature of Epstein 2s attorneys Critically however other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection neither Villafafia nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta or any of the other subjects extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel or for any other improper reason Villafafia explained how in her view the 223legal prowess of Epstein 2s attorneys had an impact on the case CA/Aronberg-0618 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM reconsider the provision Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epsteins attorneys Second Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA Immediately after signing the agreement he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate In addition to repeatedly attacking the NP A in his submissions to the Department Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel Epsteins dissatisfaction with the NPA and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NP A for Epsteins benefit OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein In evaluating the subjects conduct OPR considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism bias or other improper motivation The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys Epsteins wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case in the State Attorneys Office in the USAO and elsewhere in the Department Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epsteins behalf was Guy Lewis a fonner AUSA in and U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Villafana and Lourie had worked for Lewis and Lourie was close friends with one of Lewiss law partners Epstein also retained Lilly Ann Sanchez a former AUSA who had been Menchels deputy and with whom he had socialized Later when Epstein was seeking Acostas personal involvement in the case Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz prominent attorneys from Kirkland Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm Villafana told OPR that she believed Acosta was influenced by the stature of Epsteins attorneys Critically however other than the infonnation regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection neither Villafana nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta or any of the other subjects extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel or for any other improper reason Villafana explained how in her view the legal prowess of Epsteins attorneys had an impact on the case CA/Aronberg-0618 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM One of the issues in the case was the defense 2s ability to describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be But because they were able to convince members of our office that it was somehow extremely novel and legally complex the issue became who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues And because of that the legal prowess if you will of the attorneys became something to consider I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn 2t know what I was talking about also all came into play So I think there were a number of factors and it all came together Although Villafana was critical of Acosta 2s consideration of the defense arguments she conceded that the defense team 2s tactics demonstrated effective advocacy Certainly throughout the case Epstein 2s attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing nuanced legal points concerning federalism the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes and the evidence relevant to those statutes but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to carefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defense counsel There is little question that Epstein 2s extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain negotiated benefits for Epstein 227although the USAO never wavered from its three core requirements it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer and it granted Epstein certain other concessions during the negotiations Epstein 2s wealth provided him with skilled experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions and with attorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter thereby delaying undesired outcomes for as long as possible.223 Despite Epstein 2s evident intentions however OPR did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NPA or its terms resulted from the subjects relationships with the attorneys he had selected to represent him The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions Acosta Menchel Sloman and Lourie each asserted that Epstein 2s choice of counsel did not affect his handling of the case Menchel told OPR that once in private practice former colleagues often became adversaries In Menchel 2s view such preexisting relationships were useful because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues a prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern which enabled the defense attorney to 223tailor arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO Menchel told OPR however that these advantages did not 223move the needle in any major way and he 223rejected the notion that anyone in the USAO had been 223swayed because of preexisting As Chief Reiter later observed in Iris deposition testimony 223The Epstein case was an instance of a many million dollars defense and what it can accomplish CA/Aronberg-0619 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM One of the issues in the case was the defenses ability to describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be But because they were able to convince members of our office that it was somehow extremely novel and legally complex the issue became who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues And because of that the legal prowess if you will of the attorneys became something to consider I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didnt know what I was talking about also all came into play So I think there were a number of factors and it all came together Although Villafana was critical of Acostas consideration of the defense arguments she conceded that the defense teams tactics demonstrated effective advocacy Certainly throughout the case Epsteins attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing nuanced legal points concerning federalism the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes and the evidence relevant to those statutes but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to carefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defense counsel There is little question that Epsteins extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain negotiated benefits for Epstein-although the USAO never wavered from its three core requirements it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer and it granted Epstein certain other concessions during the negotiations Epsteins wealth provided him with skilled experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions and with attorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter thereby delaying undesired outcomes for as long as possible Despite Epsteins evident intentions however OPR did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NP A or its terms resulted from the subjects relationships with the attorneys he had selected to represent him The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions Acosta Menchel Sloman and Lourie each asserted that Epsteins choice of counsel did not affect his handling of the case Menchel told OPR that once in private practice former colleagues often became adversaries ln Menchels view such preexisting relationships were useful because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues a prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern which enabled the defense attorney to tailor arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO Menchel told OPR however that these advantages did not move the needle in any major way and he rejected the notion that anyone in the USAO had been swayed because of preexisting As Chief Reiter later observed in his deposition testimony The Epstein case was an instance of a many million dollars defense and what it can accomplish CA/Aronberg-0619 FILED PAI-:M BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM friendships or associations with any of Epstein 2s attorneys In fact Mencheltold OPR that he and his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein 2s attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as 223ham-fisted and 223clumsy Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy Lewis and Lewis 2s law partner he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other colleagues and any of Epstein 2s attorneys but that in any event his attitude regarding cases involving former colleagues 223was that we would give them process but we didn 2t pull any punches with them In Sloman 2s view preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not 223change the equation because as AUSAs he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be best for the case Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein 2s attorneys 223didn 2t influence anything Notably at the outset of the Epstein case Lourie sought guidance from the USAO 2s Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the investigation because of his acquaintance with Lewis and long-time friendship with Lewis 2s law partner OPR considered Lourie 2s caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility Officer 2s advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding relationships with defense counsel including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest Acosta said during his OPR interview that he 223developed the three criteria reflected on the term sheet sentence of incarceration sexual offender registration and monetary damages for the victims 227before he engaged directly with any of Epstein 2s attorneys and before Epstein added Starr and Lefkowitz the Kirkland Ellis attorneys to his team Acosta pointed out that the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after Kirkland Ellis became involved in the case Acosta took other actions that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and Lefkowitz On several occasions when directly appealed to by Lefkowitz or Starr he directed them to address their communications to Villafana Sloman and other subordinates After his October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz Acosta immediately communicated with Sloman about their conversation In late when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland Ellis he recognized the conflict of interest and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter On Acosta 2s behalf the USAO 2s Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department approval of Acosta 2s recusal from the case based on the fact that he had 223begun to discuss possible employment with Kirkland Ellis These actions support Acosta 2s assertion that he was cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel.224 In addition in May Hie USAO 2s Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with Hie Department 2s Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta should recuse from the Epstein matter because he was considering seeking a visiting professorsliip at Harvard Law School in and Dershowitz Harvard Law School professor 227was representing Epstein a private paying client and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic or law school teaching program and 223should have no role in deciding whether Mr Acosta is offered any position as a visiting professor The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal CA/Aronberg-0620 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM friendships or associations with any of Epsteins attorneys In fact Mencheltold OPR that he and his USAO colleagues viewed Epsteins attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as ham-fisted and clumsy Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy Lewis and Lewiss law partner he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other colleagues and any of Epsteins attorneys but that in any event his attitude regarding cases involving former colleagues was that we would give them process but we didnt pull any punches with them In Slomans view preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not change the equation because as AUSAs he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be best for the case Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epsteins attorneys didnt influence anything Notably at the outset of the Epstein case Lourie sought guidance from the USAOs Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the investigation because of his acquaintance with Lewis and long-time friendship with Lewiss law partner OPR considered Lourie caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility Officers advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding relationships with defense counsel including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest Acosta said during his OPR interview that he developed the three criteria reflected on the term sheet-a sentence of incarceration sexual offender registration and monetary damages for the victims-before he engaged directly with any of Epsteins attorneys and before Epstein added Starr and Lefkowitz the Kirkland Ellis attorneys to his team Acosta pointed out that the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after Kirkland Ellis became involved in the case Acosta took other actions that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and Lefkowitz On several occasions when directly appealed to by Lefkowitz or Starr he directed them to address their communications to Villafana Sloman and other subordinates After his October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz Acosta immediately communicated with Sloman about their conversation In late when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland Ellis he recognized the conflict of interest and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter On Acostas behalf the USAOs Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department approval of Acostas recusal from the case based on the fact that he had begun to discuss possible employment with Kirkland Ellis These actions support Acostas assertion that he was cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel In addition in May U1e USAOs Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with U1e Departments Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta_ should recuse from the Epstein mailer because he was considering seeking a visiting professorship al Han,ard Law School in and Dershowitz-a Harvard Law School professor-was representing Epstein as a private paying client and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic or law school teaching program and should have no role in deciding whetl1er Mr Acosta is offered any position as a visiting,professor The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal CA/Aronberg-0620 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM In its review of the documentary record OPR examined an email written by Villafana in more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated in which she suggested that the two-year sentence requirement in the initial 223term sheet provided to the defense was developed by Menchel as a favor to defense attorney Sanchez OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and determined that there was no merit to it Specifically in December after the Miami Herald investigative report renewed public attention to the case Villafana recounted in an email to a supervisory AUSA a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case.225 In the email Villafana stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta 2s decision to offer a two-year plea deal but she added the following 223Months or possibly years later asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from He said that Lily Vc Ann Sanchez attorney for Epstein asked Mr Menchel to her a solid and convince Mr Acosta to offer two years OPR questioned both Villafana and Sloman about the purported her a solid remark Villafana told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and Sanchez were friends During her OPR interview Villafana explained A lot later I asked Jeff I said you know 223Jeff where did this two years come from And he said 223Well always figured that Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid which I thought was such a strange term 223and to get her a good deal so that she would be in Epstein 2s good graces and that that 2s where the two years came from Although strangely enough then several years after that Jeff Sloman asked me where the two years came from and I had to remind him of that conversation So Jeff doesn 2t know where the two years came from Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms OPR asked Villafana whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two-year deal was a favor from Menchel to defense counsel or whether he had stated that he merely 223figured that was the case but Villafana could not recall precisely what Sloman had said At a follow-up interview Villafana again said that she was unable to recall whether Sloman 2s specific statement was 223Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid and he did it or always figured Matt just wanted to do her a solid Villafana stated that she was unaware of any information that 223expressly indicated that there was any sort of exchange of a favor in either direction During his OPR interview Sloman not recall making such a remark although he could not rule out the possibility that Villafana for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect 223heard that in some fashion He told OPR that if he did say something to Villafana about Menchel having done solid for Epstein 2s counsel he could not have meant it seriously and he explained not something that I would have believed Him doing her a solid I mean that 2s the furthest thing from my recollection or impression even after years later Villafaiia 2s email stemmed from a congressional inquiry received by the Department concerning the Epstein investigation and Ilie NPA to which the USAO liad been asked to assist in responding In her email Villafana addressed several issues that she perceived to be the 223three main questions raised by the press coverage CA/Aronberg-0621 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM In its review of the documentary record OPR examined an email written by Villafana in more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated in which she suggested that the two-year sentence requirement in the initial term sheet provided to the defense was developed by Mench el as a favor to defense attorney Sanchez OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and determined that there was no merit to it Specifically in December after the Miami Herald investigative report renewed public attention to the case Villafana recounted in an email to a supervisory AUSA a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case In the email Villafana stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acostas decision to offer a two-year plea deal but she added the following Months or possibly years later I asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from He said that Lily sic Ann Sanchez attorney for Epstein asked Mr Menchel to do her a solid and convince Mr Acosta to offer two years OPR questioned both Villafana and Sloman about the purported do her a solid remark Villafana told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and Sanchez were friends During her OPR interview Villafana explained A lot later I asked Jeff I said you know Jeff where did this two years come from And he said Well I always figured that Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid which thought was such a strange term and to get her a good deal so that she would be in Epsteins good graces and that thats where the two years came from Although strangely enough then several years after that Jeff Sloman asked me where the two years came from and I had to remind him of that conversation So Jeff doesnt know where the two years came from Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms OPR asked Villafana whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two-year deal was a favor from Menchel to defense counsel or whether he had stated that he merely figured that was the case but Villafana could not recall precisely what Sloman had said At a follow-up interview Villafana again said that she was unable to recall whether Slomans specific statement was Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid and he did it or"l always figured Matt just wanted to do her a solid Villafana stated that she was unaware of any information that expressly indicated that there was any sort of exchange of a favor in either direction During his OPR interview Sloman did not recall making such a remark although he could not rule out the possibility that Villafana for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect heard that in some fashion He told OPR that if he did say something to Villafana about Mench el having done a solid for Epsteins counsel he could not have meant it seriously and he explained Its not something that I would have believed Him doing her a solid I mean thats the furthest thing from my recollection or impression even after years later Villafafi.a entail stenuned fro1n a congressional inquiry received by the Depart1ent concenling the Epstein investigation and tl1e NP A lo which the USAO had been asked lo assist in responding In her email Villafana addressed several issues that she perceived to be tl1e three main questions raised by the press coverage CA/Aronberg-0621 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Menchel told OPR that when he and Sanchez were in the USAO they had a social relationship which included in handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks We decided that this was probably best not to pursue and we mutually agreed to not do that Apart from that he stated they were 223close and 223hung out and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time Menchel said that his relationship with Sanchez 223changed dramatically when she left the office for private practice and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation he had dated and married his wife and his contact with Sanchez would 223most likely have-364 been at office events and when she attended his wedding.227 Menchel added 223That was three and a half years prior for a very brief period of time and I don 2t think I gave it a moment 2s thought When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term of incarceration Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure In response to OPR 2s question Menchel stated that his relationship with Sanchez did 223not at all affect his handling of the Epstein case Moreover Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta not Menchel who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point as well as the statements OPR from Menchel Villafana Sloman and Acosta and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel The USAO 2s first plea overture to defense counsel which took place sometime before June occurred when Menchel spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration According to the email was a non-starter for the defense In the lengthy email exchange with Villafana in early July Menchel told her that his discussion with Sanchez about a state-based resolution was made with Acosta 2s 223full knowledge Acosta corroborated this statement telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense counsel 223without having discussed it with me Moreover the defense not immediately Acosta Sloman and Lourie each told OPR that in he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated Sanchez OPR questioned the USAO 2s Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchel had an obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it would depend on 223how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that if he had been approached for advice at tire time he would have asked for more facts but 223given the sensitivity of the Epstein matter my advice would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with Sanchez had turned into something more than a handful of dates he would have advised his supervisors Although OPR does not conclude Menchel 2s prior relationship with Sanchez influenced the Epstein investigation OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality Menchel 2s Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with Sanchez on at least one occasion in early after she left the USAO In addition Villafana recalled Menchel stating at the July meeting that 223Alex lias decided to offer a two year state deal CA/Aronberg-0622 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Menchel told OPR that when he and Sanchez were in the USAO they had a social relationship which included in a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks We decided that this was probably best not to pursue and we mutually agreed to not do that Apart from that he stated they were close and hung out and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time Menchel said that his relationship with Sanchez changed dramatically when she left the office for private practice and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation he had dated and married his wife and his contact with Sanchez would most likely have been at office events and when she attended his wedding Menchel added That was three and a half years prior for a very brief period of time and I dont think I gave it a moments thought When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term of incarceration Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure ln response to OPRs question Menchel stated that his relationship with Sanchez did not at all affect his handling of the Epstein case Moreover Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta not Menchel who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point as well as the statements to OPR from Menchel Villafana Sloman and Acosta and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel The USAOs first plea overture to defense counsel which took place sometime before June occurred when Menchel spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration According to the email it was a non-starter for the defense In the lengthy email exchange with Villafana in early July Menchel told her that his discussion with Sanchez about a state-based resolution was made with Acostas full knowledge Acosta corroborated this statement telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense counsel without having discussed it with me Moreover the defense did not immediately Acosta Slonian and Lourie each told OPR that in he vas not a,vare that Menchel had previously dated Sanchez OPR questioned the USAOs Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchel had an obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it would depend on how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that if he had been approached for advice at the time he would have asked for more facts but given the sensitivity of the Epstein matter my advice would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with Sanchez had turned into something more than a handful of dates he would have advised his supervisors Although OPR does not conclude Menchels prior relationship with Sanchez influenced the Epstein investigation OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have infonned his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality Menchers Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with Sanchez on at least one occasion in early after she left the USAO In addition Villafana recalled Menchel stating at the July meeting that Alex has decided to offer a two year state deal CA Aronberg-0622 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM accept the two-year proposal when it was made but instead continued to press for a sentence of home confinement suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and not view it as such The defense had previously rejected the state 2s offer of a sentence of probation and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail sentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early stages of the negotiations As discussed below after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the two year offer and a thorough review of the documentary record OPR was unable to determine the reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration as opposed to any other term of years Nonetheless OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of and approved the initial offer to the defense which included the two-year term of incarceration The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of Menchel 2s was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later Sloman the purported declarant told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement but he firmly disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his understanding of that reason Villafana herself could remember little about the critical conversation with Sloman including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said Given the lack of any corroborating evidence and the evidence showing Epstein 2s vigorous resistance to the proposal OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in Villafana 2s email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal-595 as a favor to one of Epstein 2s attorneys The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie to meet with defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein defense team The Evidence Shows That the Subjects Decisions to Meet with Epstein 2s Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations Although pre-indictment negotiations are typical in white-collar criminal cases involving financial crimes witnesses told OPR that pre-charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent in sex offense cases As the lead prosecutor Villafana vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein 2s attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors but was overruled by them In Villafana 2s view the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team was that but for those meetings the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July 223term sheet and moreover 223that term sheet would never been offered to anyone else OPR 2s investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the subjects through emails correspondence and phone calls relatively few in-person meetings actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter As shown in the chart on the following page while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed the subject supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the case CA/Aronberg-0623 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM accept the two-year proposal when it was made but instead continued to press for a sentence of home confinement suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and did not view it as such The defense had previously rejected the states offer of a sentence of probation and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail sentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early stages of the negotiations As discussed below after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the two year offer and a thorough review of the documentary record OPR was unable to determine the reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration as opposed to any other term of years Nonetheless OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of and approved the initial offer to the defense which included the two-year term of incarceration The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of Menchels was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later Sloman the purported declarant told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement but he firmly disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his understanding of that reason Villafana herself could remember little about the critical conversation with Sloman including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said Given the lack of any corroborating evidence and the evidence showing Epsteins vigorous resistance to the proposal OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in Villafana I email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal as a favor to one of Epsteins attorneys The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Meetings with Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie to meet with defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein defense team The Evidence Shows That the Subjects Decisions to Meet with Epsteins Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations Although pre-indictment negotiations are typical in white-collar criminal cases involving financial crimes witnesses told OPR that pre-charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent in sex offense cases As the lead prosecutor Villafana vehemently opposed meeting with Epsteins attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors but was overruled by them In Villafanas view the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team was that but for those meetings the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July term sheet and moreover that term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else OPRs investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the subjects through emails correspondence and phone calls relatively few in-person meetings actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter As shown in the chart on the following page while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed the subject supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the case CA/Aronberg-0623 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM including.one called by the USAOIo offerthe NPA tenn sheet resolution 227and a sixth meeting together with the.StateAfto the lead--state prosecutor to discuss the state plea Acosta attended only one pre-NPA meeting After the NPA was siguedand before Epstein ehtefed liis State guilfy pleasLthe subject supervisors and the defense team hadfqne substantive meeting,,one unscheduled meeting oh a prdcechiraf matter and a meeting with one defense attorney in preparation for a conference call in additi 225Date USAO Participants Defense Participants Topic/Purpo-e Pre-NPA Feb Loune Villafaha Lefcourt Sanchez Defense presents mvestigation improprieties and federal jurisdiction issues Feb Lourie Villafaha Lefcourt Sanchez Defense presents witness issues June Slbmah ZMenehcl Lourie Villafaha Dershowitz Black Lefcourt Sanchez Defense presents legal issues investigation improprieties and federal jurisdiction issues July Sloman Meuchel Lourie Villafaha Black,/Lefcourt Sanchez USAO presents NPA term sheet Sept Acosta Oosterbaan Sloman Villafaha Villafaha is co-counsei Stair7 Lefkowitz Sanchez Defense presents counteroffer Sept Lourie Lourie successor Villafaha Le fkowif Lefcourt Goldberger Joint meeting with KrischerZ Belphlavek re state plea provision of NPA Post-NPA Oct Acosta Lefkowitz Defense discussion of NPA terms and likely appeal to Department Nov unscheduled Sloman possibly Acosta LefkowitZiQjossibly Dershowitz Defensediscussion of victims attorneyrepresentative procedure Dec Acosta SlomahV Villafaha another senior AUSA Starr Weinberg Dershowitz Lefcourt Defense presents federal jurisdiction issues legal issues and request for-de ndyo review Jan Acosta Sloman Acosta Sloman conferencecall Sanchez Staif Lefkowitz Sanchez Defense presents USA improprieties and 223watered down resolution In addition all of the subjects took phone cal Is from various defense attorneys and although numerous documentary records refer such-ctiUs there may to others for which OPR located no record CA/Aronberg-0624 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I rn!,:lt1 ing;9n _ct1ifocf by th IJSAQ t9 9fJ t,the A tenu;slieet J_esoiti t11d a.si;..th meeting together fith tlie,.St t-eA,ttgJjiey atid,theJ ai:Lstate prgse,f 265tor to ciis,ctis th te a Acgsti:i atteQcied:only on pre-l 1P A meeting Aft.e,rithe _NPJ vas sigue 1,and be qre.Epste ei tefod ius state guilty jjte s.,Jlie_su je,ct st1per lis9rs and the defe,nse teamliad._o slibstat1frve Jle ting 1ri1scl edhl tiiee,ti1ig Oil a procechiraf li1art and a i 265ee,tiilg with on;e,defense aUolTiey in pr pa_niti for a c;o1ife e,n_ce Ili in d_d_ifrou A_cost ha_Q the brealifa t,rne,etj _g,yiJli yi_tz Lourie Villafana tle Slpnian l;t,1_eiich Lot1e/-Villaf1tiia Slohian MetichelT Dersbc vifzl ck Defe,ps preseiits.l gal:isst!es I LefcowtI Sanchei 11iVe tiggti911;i 2651proptieties ftild ecl raf 267m1sciittiofi i s_u iBlh 242k/Lefco Lourie Villafafla 267Sanchez vS Ac9sta/Oosteroa StarrILefko,vitz Sloma.n Villafa1fa s,u,diez 267oeiens P,resents coun_teroffer Yilla:fanat co,:cotinsel S,ept l7P00T Lo_m1e Lo frj LefkowifzTLefcdiuf Joit:meeting.,,viili Ktischer-l su cessor/YBla ruia Go!dQergei Bel Wavek re S_f IJ a Slbmai possibly msd1e ded A,c9sta.j Dec Acos a SloimiJU Vil afafia another senior AIJSA Acosta/Sloman costa/,Slomaii ri1ifereiice call roVision,of NPA LefK:owitz Difenstf i fll 247SiQn NPA tetms aildl 265tely;app ll I epartmeilt Lefl;o vitz Rossibly Def ns 4iscu si9n ofvictiilis 1:shgwitz attorneyreptes nt tive rocecfore arrIWeinberg Defe1-1sEf pr selit fecler 1i oe!slio,vitz I j1irjsdictio 265issues,Jegaffasues Lefcoi.ut and te i1estfor,de review chez Def nse pr!seht 267SfaijJ impt-:Oprietieirand vafeied Lefl5oWitzJ-Sah Mz clown"resohitipp ii9 Iri additimi all_ s,f lif sub foe ts took phgn alls frorii variohs defen,se aJtcfr1iey4 and 1il 1C ugh 1nu 9us documentary _recoi i:e:fe1",to such-f.nlls thei;e may ve:l?e_eii_ others fonvhich OfRlocate no reco CA Aronberg-0624 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM OPR explored the subject supervisors reasoning for accommodating the defense requests for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual OPR questioned each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense Lourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein 2s defense counsel but he told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so Lourie recognized that some prosecutors 227like Villafana 227viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of 223weakness but in Lourie 2s view 223information is power and as long as the USAO did not share information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments meetings were 223all power to us Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense 223You 2re getting the information that they think is important that they 2re going to focus on The witnesses that they think are liars And so you can form all of that into your strategy Lourie also told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important 223part of the process that helped ensure procedural fairness allowing them to 223believe that they are getting heard When asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants Lourie responded don 2t recall ever getting so many requests for meetings and so many appeals and so many audiences that Epstein 2s attorneys got But this was I think the first time that that 2s really happened Menchel too told OPR that his general view was that 223ethically it 2s appropriate to give a defense attorney audience and there was no real 223downside to doing so Menchel added 223What happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being raised by the defense and it 2s good to know what the defense will be During his OPR interview Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was unusual or outside the norm He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team before the NPA was signed was 223not the first and only time that I granted a meeting to defense attorneys who requested one Acosta did not believe it was 223atypical for a U.S Attorney to meet with opposing counsel particularly as a case was coming to resolution Sloman corroborated Acosta on this point telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein 2s counsel the normal course Furthermore Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other 223process granted to the defense by the USAO and the Department successfully held firm in our positions on the key elements of the resolution 227that is the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated register as a sexual offender and provide monetary damages to the victims OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject 2s decisions to have the individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral strategic purpose The first meeting on February followed a phone call between Lourie and one of Epstein 2s attorneys in which the attorney asked for a chance to 223make a pitch about the victims lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that pitch Villafana objected to meeting with the defense but she recalled that Lourie told her she was not being a 223strategic thinker and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of Epstein The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein but in advance of the follow-up meeting on February defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state 2s witness interviews Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the defense arguments After Villafana circulated the prosecution memorandum Lourie suggested CA/Aronberg-0625 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM OPR explored the subject supervisors reasoning for accommodating the defense requests for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual OPR questioned each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense Lourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epsteins defense counsel but he told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so Lourie recognized that some prosecutors-like Villafana-viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of weakness but in Lauries view information is power and as long as the USAO did not share information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments meetings were all power to us Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense Youre getting the information that they think is important that theyre going to focus on The witnesses that they think are liars And so you can form all of that into your strategy Lourie also told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important part of the process that helped ensure procedural fairness allowing them to believe that they are getting heard When asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants Lourie responded I dont recall ever getting so many requests for meetings and so many appeals and so many audiences that Epsteins attorneys got But this was I think the first time that thats really happened Menchel too told OPR that his general view was that ethically its appropriate to give a defense attorney an audience and there was no real downside to doing so Menchel added What happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being raised by the defense and its good to know what the defense will be During his OPR interview Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was unusual or outside the norm He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team before the NP A was signed was not the first and only time that I granted a meeting to defense attorneys who requested one Acosta did not believe it was atypical for a U.S Attorney to meet with opposing counsel particularly as a case was coming to resolution Sloman corroborated Acosta on this point telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from Epsteins counsel in the normal course Furthermore Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other process granted to the defense by the USAO and the Department we successfully held firm in our positions on the key elements of the resolution-that is the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated register as a sexual offender and provide monetary damages to the victims OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subjects decisions to have the individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral strategic purpose The first meeting on February followed a phone call between Lourie and one of Epsteins attorneys in which the attorney asked for a chance to make a pitch about the victims lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that pitch Villafana objected to meeting with the defense but she recalled that Lourie told her she was not being a strategic thinker and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of Epstein The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein but in advance of the follow-up meeting on February defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the states witness interviews Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the defense arguments After Villafana circulated the prosecution memorandum Lourie suggested CA/Aronberg-0625 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM preparing a 223short charging document 223with only 221clean victims that they have not dirtied up already The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the victims credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were in his experience a useful source of information that could be factored into the government 2s charging strategy The two February Villafana/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators but in late May defense attorneys requested another meeting 227this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution The request was granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that would probably be helpful to us to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something The requested meeting took place on June Before the meeting at Menchel 2s direction Villafafia provided to the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges Defense counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter submitted to the USAO the day before the June meeting as overview of the defense position In an email to his colleagues Lourie evaluated the defense submission noting its weaker and stronger arguments A contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel Lourie and Villafafia viewed the meeting itself as primarily a 223listening session After the meeting Epstein 2s team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO detailing Epstein 2s 223federalism arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel on July to facilitate the USAO 2s presentation to the defense team of the 223term sheet describing the proposed terms of a non-prosecution agreement By early August after the Kirkland Ellis attorneys 227Starr and Lefkowitz 227joined the defense team Acosta believed they would likely to DC on the case on the grounds that I have not met with them A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September when Acosta Sloman Villafafia and Oosterbaan met with Starr Lefkowitz and Sanchez In an email to Sloman Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense with Oosterbaan participating discuss general legal policy only In another email to Sloman and Lourie Acosta explained 223This will end up in the Department anyhow if we don 2t meet with them I 2d rather keep it here Bringing the CEOS Chief in visibly does so If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that it 2s worth it Acosta told OPR that the meeting 223was not a negotiation but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case and 223the September meeting did not alter or shift our position Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document 223should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all During her OPR interview the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about the government 2s case including Ilie number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved and that during a break in the meeting she engaged in a 223discussion with Menchel about providing this information to the defense She did not recall specifics of the discussion however CA/Aronberg-0626 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM preparing a short charging document with only clean victims that they have not dirtied up already The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the victims credibility to fonnulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were in his experience a useful source of infonnation that could be factored into the governments charging strategy The two February Villafana/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators but in late May defense attorneys requested another meeting-this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman-to make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution The request was granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that it would probably be helpful to us to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something The requested meeting took place on June Before the meeting at Menchel direction Villafana provided to the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges Defense counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter submitted to the USAO the day before the June meeting as an overview of the defense position In an email to his colleagues Lourie evaluated the defense submission noting its weaker and stronger arguments A contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel Lourie and Villafana viewed the meeting itself as primarily a listening session After the meeting Epsteins team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO detailing Epsteins federalism arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel on July to facilitate the USAO presentation to the defense team of the tenn sheet describing the proposed tenns of a non-prosecution agreement By early August after the Kirkland Ellis attorneys-Starr and Lefkowitz-joined the defense team Acosta believed they would likely go to DC on the case on the grounds that I have not met with them A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September when Acosta Sloman Villafana and Oosterbaan met with Starr Lefkowitz and Sanchez In an email to Sloman Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense with Oosterbaan participating to discuss general legal policy only In another email to Sloman and Lourie Acosta explained This will end up in the Department anyhow if we dont meet with them Id rather keep it here Bringing the CEOS Chief in visibly does so If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that its worth it Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not a negotiation but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case and the September meeting did not alter or shift our position Lourie also recommended U1at the initial charging document should contain only the victims U1ey have noUting on at all During her OPR interview the FBI case agent recalled U1at defense counsel asked questions about U1e govenunent case including U1e number of victims and U1e type of sexual contact involved and Ural during a break in the meeting she engaged in a discussion with Menchel about providing this infonnation to the defense She did not recall specifics of the discussion however CA/Aronberg-0626 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein 2s defense attorneys together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process Even after the NPA was signed the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case both within the USAO and by the Department 2s Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General Although limited reviews were granted during this period there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta on December This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher most likely because the defense submissions to the Department 2s Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.233 Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review but he also did not want to appear as if he 223feared that review Acosta 2s nuanced position however was not clear to the Department attorneys who responded to Epstein 2s appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a Department review rather than merely tolerant of it Notably though none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued entreaties In sum in evaluating the subjects conduct OPR considered the number of meetings their purpose the content of the discussions and decisions made afterwards OPR cannot say that the number of meetings particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed was so far outside the norm 227for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys 227that the quantity of meetings alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism In evaluating the subjects conduct OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta Menchel Lourie or Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys they may been willing to meet with them it is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys including those who are known to them and those who are not Furthermore meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department Most significantly OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense At each meeting defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO factual legal and policy grounds forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to proceed as it saw fit The USAO never yielded on that point Accordingly OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana met with defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein Acosta 2s October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip those requests were not granted CA/Aronberg-0627 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The meeting of USAO representatives and Epsteins defense attorneys together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September was a necessary part of the NP A negotiation process Even after the NP A was signed the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case both within the USAO and by the Departments Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General Although limited reviews were granted during this period there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta on December This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher most likely because the defense submissions to the Departments Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review but he also did not want to appear as if he feared that review Acostas nuanced position however was not clear to the Department attorneys who responded to Epsteins appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a Department review rather than merely tolerant of it Notably though none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued entreaties In sum in evaluating the subjects conduct OPR considered the number of meetings their purpose the content of the discussions and decisions made afterwards OPR cannot say that the number of meetings particularly those occurring before the NP A was signed was so far outside the norm-for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys-that the quantity of meetings alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism In evaluating the subjects conduct OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels ofUSAO managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta Menchel Lourie or Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys they may have been willing to meet with them it is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys including those who are known to them and those who are not Furthermore meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department Most significantly OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense At each meeting defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO-on factual legal and policy grounds-to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to proceed as it saw fit The USAO never yielded on that point Accordingly OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana met with defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein Acostas October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip those requests were not granted CA/Aronberg-0627 FILED PAM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the subject of media attention and public criticism The Miami Herald November reporting on the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October breakfast meeting that defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott hotel According to the Miami Herald article deal was struck at the meeting to allow Epstein to serve 223just months in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal investigation and Acosta also agreed to 223conceal the full extent of Epstein 2s crimes from the victims and the public.234 Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta 2s Miami office the evidence shows that Acosta traveled to West Palm Beach on October for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel near the USAO 2s West Palm Beach office because at midday on October he was to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference After carefully considering the evidence surrounding the breakfast meeting including contemporaneous email communications and witness accounts OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA or make any significant concessions relating to it during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting Epstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September 227more than two weeks before the October breakfast meeting The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties and despite a later addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement those key provisions remained in place thereafter Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations with the defense he sought three goals Epstein 2s guilty plea in state court to an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender a sentence of imprisonment and a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein As noted previously the USAO 2s original plea offer in Menchel 2s August letter expressed a 223non-negotiable demand that Epstein agree to a two-year term of imprisonment and the final NPA required only an 18-month sentence but the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from to months was made well before Acosta 2s breakfast meeting with counsel The NPA signed on September required months incarceration sexual offender registration and a mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein and OPR found that these terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting At the time of Acosta 2s October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz two issues involving the NPA were in dispute Neither of those issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materially changed the key provisions of the NPA First at Sloman 2s instigation the USAO sought to change the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims This USAO-initiated request had prompted discussions about an 223addendum to the NPA Sloman sent the text of a proposed NPA addendum to Lefkowitz on October Although OPR found no decisive Julie Brown 223Perversion of Justice How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime Miami Herald Nov In his December letter to defense attorney Sanchez Acosta represented that he had proposed the addendum at the breakfast meeting but it is clear the addendum was being developed before then CA/Aronberg-0628 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the subject of media attention and public criticism The Miami Heralds November reporting on the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October breakfast meeting that defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott hotel According to the Miami Herald article a deal was struck at the meeting to allow Epstein to serve just months in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal investigation and Acosta also agreed to conceal the full extent of Epsteins crimes from the victims and the public Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acostas Miami office the evidence shows that Acosta traveled to West Palm Beach on October for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel near the USAO West Palm Beach office because at midday on October he was to speak at the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference After carefully considering the evidence surrounding the breakfast meeting including contemporaneous email communications and witness accounts OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA or make any significant concessions relating to it during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting Epstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September than two weeks before the October breakfast meeting The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties and despite a later addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement those key provisions remained in place thereafter Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations with the defense he sought three goals Epsteins guilty plea in state court to an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender a sentence of imprisonment and a mechanism through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein As noted previously the USAOs original plea offer in Menchels August letter expressed a non-negotiable demand that Epstein agree to a two-year term of imprisonment and the final NPA required only an 18-month sentence but the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from to months was made well before Acostas breakfast meeting with counsel The NPA signed on September required months incarceration sexual offender registration and a mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein and OPR found that these terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting At the time of Acostas October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz two issues involving the NPA were in dispute Neither of those issues was ultimately resolved in a way that materially changed the key provisions of the NP A First at Sloman instigation the USAO sought to change the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims This USAO-initiated request had prompted discussions about an addendum to the NPA Sloman sent the text of a proposed NPA addendum to Lefkowitz on October Although OPR found no decisive Julie Brown Perversion of Justice How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime Miami Herald Nov In his December letter to defense attorney Sanchez Acosta represented that he had proposed the addendum at the breakfast meeting but it is clear the addendum was being developed before then CA/Aronberg-0628 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM proof that this led to the breakfast meeting email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting Shortly after the breakfast meeting Sloman in Miami sent an email to Lefkowitz copying Acosta and Villafana noting that he 223just got off the phone with Alex and offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative Sloman later clarified for Villafana that 223Jay 2s suggested revision has been rejected A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein 2s obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative 2s fees did not obligate him to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him Although this was at odds with theUSAO 2s interpretation of the provision the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the provision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast meeting Although the revised provision was to Epstein 2s advantage the revision concerned attorney 2s fees and not materially impede the victims ability to seek damages from Epstein under The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that Acosta not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta and Lefkowitz In a letter sent to Acosta on October two weeks after the breakfast meeting Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting Specifically Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed not to intervene with the State Attorney 2s Office 2s handling of the case not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their counsel and not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received Acosta told OPR that he not remember the breakfast meeting and not recall making the commitments defense counsel attributed to him Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of events and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversations he had with Acosta Of more significance for OPR 2s evaluation was a contemporaneous document October draft response to Lefkowitz 2s letter which Sloman drafted and Acosta reviewed and edited for signature by Sloman 227that disputed Lefkowitz 2s claims The draft letter stated I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate in that October 23rd letter Your letter claimed that this Office would not intervene with the State Attorney 2s Office regarding this matter or contact any of the identified individuals potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter and neither your Office nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence Mr Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State so long as that sentence does not violate state law As we discussed and hopefully clarified and as the United States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call such a CA/Aronberg-0629 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM proof that this led to the breakfast meeting email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting Shortly after the breakfast meeting Sloman in Miami sent an email to Lefkowitz copying Acosta and Villafana noting that he just got off the phone with Alex and offering a slightly revised portion of the addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative Sloman later clarified for Villafana that Jays suggested revision has been rejected A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epsteins obligation under the NP A to pay the attorney representatives fees did not obligate him to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him Although this was at odds with the USA Os interpretation of the provision the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the provision in the NP A addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast meeting Although the revised provision was to Epsteins advantage the revision concerned attorneys fees and did not materially impede the victims ability to seek damages from Epstein under The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta and Lefkowitz ln a letter sent to Acosta on October two weeks after the breakfast meeting Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting Specifically Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed not to intervene with the State Attorneys Offices handling of the case not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their counsel and not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense counsel attributed to him Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of events and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly characterized conversations he had with Acosta Of more significance for OPRs evaluation was a contemporaneous document-an October draft response to Lefkowitz letter which Sloman drafted and Acosta reviewed and edited for signature by Sloman-that disputed Lefkowitzs claims The draft letter stated CA Aronberg-0629 I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was inaccurate in that October 23rd let.ter Your letter claimed that this Office would not intervene with the State Attorneys Office regarding this matter or contact any of the identified individuals potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter and neither your Office nor the FBI would intervene regarding the sentence Mr Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State so long as that sentence does not violate state law As we discussed and hopefully clarified and as the United States Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call such a FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM promise equates to the imposition of a gag order Our Office cannot and will not agree to this It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting Although OPR could not find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta shortly after the breakfast meeting disagreed with Lefkowitz 2s description of their discussions had discussed those disagreements with Sloman Nevertheless OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the October letter to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting First Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the state 2s handling of the case Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to 223dictate actions to the State Attorney or the state court For example during the NPA negotiations Acosta asked Villafana to 223soften certain language that appeared to require the State Attorney 2s Office or the state court to take specific actions such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the state 2s proceedings such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject rather than any new concession Lefkowitz also claimed in his October letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel For the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter Three OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from the breakfast meeting but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision Acosta Sloman and Villafana Finally Lefkowitz 2s October letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from state court and it asserted that Epstein was 223entitled to any type of sentence available to him including but not limited to gain time and work release Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel however show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPA 2s explicit sentencing provision The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney 2s Office for an 18-month jail sentence although the parties understood that he would receive the same 223gain time benefits available to all state inmates After the October breakfast meeting Sloman and Villafana on behalf of the USAO repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release For example in a November letter Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that 223Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of months of continuous confinement in the county jail Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in June Villafana wrote to the State Attorney to remind him that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month CA/Aronberg-0630 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM promise equates to the imposition of a gag order Our Office cannot and will not agree to this It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting Although OPR could not find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta shortly after the breakfast meeting disagreed with Lefkowitzs description of their discussions and had discussed those disagreements with Sloman Nevertheless OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the October letter to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting First Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the states handling of the case Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to dictate actions to the State Attorney or the state court For example during the NPA negotiations Acosta asked Villafana to soften certain language that appeared to require the State Attorneys Office or the state court to take specific actions such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the states proceedings such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject rather than any new concession Lefkowitz also claimed in his October letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel For the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter Three OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NP A did not stem from the breakfast meeting but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision Acosta Sloman and Villafana Finally Lefkowitzs October letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court and it asserted that Epstein was entitled to any type of sentence available to him including but not limited to gain time and work release Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel however show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPAs explicit sentencing provision The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorneys Office for an 18-month jail sentence although the parties understood that he would receive the same gain time benefits available to all state inmates After the October breakfast meeting Sloman and Villafana on behalf of the USAO repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release For example in a November letter Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of months continuous cot?finement in the county jail Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in June Villafana wrote to the State Attorney to remind him that the NP A required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month CA/Aronberg-0630 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM sentence of incarceration and theUSAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach of the NPA and would 223proceed accordingly The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June was consistent with the dictates of the NPA and pursuant to that plea the court imposed a sentence of months incarceration Epstein however applied for and was accepted into the work release program and was able to serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail The NPA did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County Stockade Moreover Villafana received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement custody Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials who had the sole authority for administering the work release program After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta 2s October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz OPR found nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA affected the sentence Epstein served pursuant to the NPA or contributed to state officials decision to permit him to participate in work release Villafana 2s Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafana or Other Subjects Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences During the CVRA litigation the petitioners obtained from Epstein 2s attorney and filed under seal a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafana and others with Acosta and Sloman during September when the NPA was being finalized and thereafter These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz 2s side of the communications and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafana 2s communications to Lefkowitz The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over Epstein 2s objections.236 Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafana 2s emails as proof that Villafana and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein 2s attorneys to keep the 223sweetheart deal a secret from the victims and the public Statements in several emails in particular were cited as evidence of the USAO 2s improper favoritism towards Epstein In one example Villafana told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision agreeing not to prosecute others but would 223prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge She also offered to meet with him 221off campus to finalize negotiations She also proposed an 221avoid the press note that filing federal charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press coverage The USAO not object to the unsealing but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal protected information United States Response to Petitioners Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the CVRA and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed Apr The court declined to order the additional redactions CA/Aronberg-0631 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM sentence of incarceration and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach of the NPA and would proceed accordingly The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June was consistent with the dictates of the NP A and pursuant to that plea the court imposed a sentence of months incarceration Epstein however applied for and was accepted into the work release program and was able to serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail The NP A did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County Stockade Moreover Villafana received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement in custody Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials who had the sole authority for administering the work release program After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acostas October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz OPR found nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NP A affected the sentence Epstein served pursuant to the NP A or contributed to state officials decision to permit him to participate in work release Villafaiias Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafana or Other Subjects Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences During the CVRA litigation the petitioners obtained from Epsteins attorney and filed under seal a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafana and others with Acosta and Sloman during September when the NP A was being finalized and thereafter These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitzs side of the communications and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafana communications to Lefkowitz The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over Epsteins objections Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafanas emails as proof that Villafana and the USAO worked in concert with Epsteins attorneys to keep the sweetheart deal a secret from the victims and the public Statements in several emails in particular were cited as evidence of the USAOs improper favoritism towards Epstein In one example Villafana told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NP A a provision agreeing not to prosecute others but would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge She also offered to meet with him off campus to finalize negotiations She also proposed on an avoid the press note that filing federal charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press coverage The USAO did not object to the unsealing but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal protected information United States Response to Petitioners Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the ICVRA and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed Apr The court declined to order the additional redactions CA Aronberg-0631 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM OPR asked Villafana about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally Villafana acknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative and explained that generally the tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her supervisors had assigned to her If you were to pull all my e-mails on every case you would find that is how I communicate with people I 2m a Minnesota girl and I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be And I can be when I need to be But my instructions from my supervisors were to engage in these negotiations and to complete them So I felt that given that task the best way to complete them was to reach the agreement and keeping in mind the terms that our office had agreed to and do that in a way that is civil So although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications with Mr Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly when you look at the terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes my response was always I will not make that change Villafana denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide an improper benefit for Epstein and she explained the context of the emails in question The email in which Villafana expressed reluctance to 223highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge was written in response to a defense proposal to include in the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not to prosecute Epstein 2s assistants and other employees Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea agreement state 223Epstein 2s fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against four named female assistants or any employee of a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation Villafana told OPR that the USAO was not intending to charge Epstein 2s assistants and was not aware of anyone else who could be charged and thus not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties However Villafana was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct which might lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty Villafana was not the only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts and whether such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement In an earlier email Lourie had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge that required dismissal of numerous substantive counts As to Villafana 2s offer to meet with Lefkowitz 223off campus to resolve outstanding issues in the NPA negotiation she explained to OPR that she believed a face-to-face meeting at a 223neutral location 227with 223all the necessary decision makers present or call might facilitate completion of the negotiations which had dragged on for some time CA/Aronberg-0632 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM OPR asked Villafana about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with Lefkowitz during the NP A negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally Villafana acknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative and explained that generally the tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her supervisors had assigned to her If you were to pull all my e-mails on every case you would find that that is how I communicate with people Im a Minnesota girl and I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be And I can be when I need to be But my instructions from my supervisors were to engage in these negotiations and to complete them So I felt that given that task the best way to complete them was to reach the agreement and keeping in mind the terms that our office had agreed to and do that in a way that is civil So although my language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications with Mr Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly when you look at the terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes my response was always No I will not make that change Villafana denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide an improper benefit for Epstein and she explained the context of the emails in question The email in which Villafana expressed reluctance to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge was written in response to a defense proposal to include in the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not to prosecute Epsteins assistants and other employees Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea agreement state Epsteins fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against four named female assistants or any employee ofa specific Epstein-owned corporate entity for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation Villafana told OPR that the USAO was not intending to charge Epsteins assistants and was not aware of anyone else who could be charged and thus did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties However Villafana was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct which might lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty Villafana was not the only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts and whether such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement In an earlier email Lourie had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge that required dismissal of numerous substantive counts As to Villafana offer to meet with Lefkowitz off campus to resolve outstanding issues in the NP A negotiation she explained to OPR that she believed a face-to-face meeting at a neutral location-with all the necessary decision makers present or on call might facilitate completion of the negotiations which had dragged on for some time CA/Aronberg-0632 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM With regard to her comment about 223avoiding the press Villafana told OPR that her goal was to protect the anonymity of the victims She said that the case was far more likely to be covered by the Palm Beach press which had already written articles about Epstein than in Miami and the victims wanted to attend the plea hearing I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper In evaluating the emails OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafana as well as Sloman and Acosta and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel including the portions redacted from the publicly released emails except for a few to or from Acosta copies of which OPR did not locate in the USAO records OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of Villafana 2s overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein The documentary record as well as witness and subject interviews establishes that Villafana consistently advocated in favor of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal She repeatedly pressed her supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the case She opposed meetings with the defense team and nearly withdrew from the case because her supervisors agreed to those meetings Villafana objected to the decision to resolve the case through a guilty plea in state court and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with Menchel about that subject When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect that resolution Villafana fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO 2s position despite defense counsel 2s aggressive tactics OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense counsel Sloman in particular told OPR that reports that Villafana 223was soft on Epstein couldn 2t been further from the truth Sloman added that Villafana 223did her best to implement the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable Lourie similarly told OPR that when he read the district court 2s February opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails from Villafana cited in that opinion he was 223surprised to see how nice she was to them And she winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them When I know the whole time she was the one who wanted to go after him the most The AUSA who assisted Villafana on the investigation told OPR 223everything that Villafana did was as far as I could tell completely pro prosecution Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other information showing Villafana 2s consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims a public narrative developed that Villafana colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence OPR finds that narrative to be inaccurate The USAO 2s and Villafana 2s interactions with the victims can be criticized as OPR does in several respects in this Report but the evidence is clear that any missteps Villafana may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the purpose of silencing victims Rather the evidence shows that Villafana in particular cared deeply about Epstein 2s victims Before the NPA was signed she raised to her supervisors the issue of consulting with victims and after the NPA was signed she drafted letters to notify victims identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to appear The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villafana and Sloman committed professional misconduct by 223threatening to send a highly improper and unusual 221victim notification letter to all of the listed victims Given the full context of Villafana 2s conduct throughout her tenure on the case OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are CA/Aronberg-0633 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM With regard to her comment about avoiding the press Villafana told OPR that her goal was to protect the anonymity of the victims She said that the case was far more likely to be covered by the Palm Beach press which had already written articles about Epstein than in Miami and if the victims wanted to attend the plea hearing I wanted them to be able to go into the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper In evaluating the emails OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafana as well as Sloman and Acosta and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel including the portions redacted from the publicly released emails except for a few to or from Acosta copies of which OPR did not locate in the USAO records OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of Villafana overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein The documentary record as well as witness and subject interviews establishes that Villafana consistently advocated in favor of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal She repeatedly pressed her supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the case She opposed meetings with the defense team and nearly withdrew from the case because her supervisors agreed to those meetings Villafana objected to the decision to resolve the case through a guilty plea in state court and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with Menchel about that subject When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect that resolution Villafana fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAOs position despite defense counsels aggressive tactics OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense counsel Sloman in particular told OPR that reports that Villafana was soft on Epstein couldnt have been further from the truth Sloman added that Villafana did her best to implement the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable Lourie similarly told OPR that when he read the district courts February opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails from Villafana cited in that opinion he was surprised to see how nice she was to them And she winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them When I know the whole time she was the one who wanted to go after him the most The AUSA who assisted Villafana on the investigation told OPR everything that Villafana did was as far as I could tell completely pro prosecution Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other information showing Villafanas consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims a public narrative developed that Villafana colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence OPR finds that narrative to be inaccurate The USAOs and Villafanas interactions with the victims can be criticized as OPR does in several respects in this Report but the evidence is clear that any missteps Villafana may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the purpose of silencing victims Rather the evidence shows that Villafana in particular cared deeply about Epsteins victims Before the NPA was signed she raised to her supervisors the issue of consulting with victims and after the NP A was signed she drafted letters to notify victims identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to appear The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villafana and Sloman committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a highly improper and unusual victim notification letter to all of the listed victims Given the full context ofVillafanas conduct throughout her tenure on the case OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are CA/Aronberg-0633 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM entitled to significant weight and OPR credits them OPR finds therefore that the emails in question do not themselves establish that Villafana or any other subject acted to improperly benefit Epstein was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences or sought to silence victims The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Lourie or Villafana Agreed to the NPA 2s Provision Promising Not to Prosecute 223Potential Co-conspirators in Order to Protect Any of Epstein 2s Political Celebrity or Other Influential Associates OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA 227Villafana Lourie and Acosta include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute 223any potential co-conspirators of Epstein in addition to four named individuals to determine whether that provision resulted from the subjects improper favoritism towards Epstein or an improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein 2s known associates Other than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it or even gave it much consideration Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute 223any potential co-conspirators of Epstein evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense The provision expanded as Villafana and defense counsel exchanged drafts of first a proposed federal plea agreement and then of the NPA with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the provision As the NPA drafting process concluded Villafana circulated to Lourie and another supervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision telling Lourie it was 223some of defense counsel 2s requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people and commenting only don 2t think it hurts us In a reply email Lourie responded to another issue As set forth in OPR 2s factual discussion early in the negotiations over a federal plea agreement the defense sought a non-prosecution provision applicable to only four female named assistants of Epstein and to unnamed employees of one of his companies Villafana initially countered with 223standard language referring to unnamed 223co-conspirators so as to avoid 223highlighting for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge Nonetheless drafts of the NPA sent by Lefkowitz after Villafafia 2s email continued to include language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees Villafana however internally circulated drafts of a federal plea agreement that included language stating 223Titis agreement resolves the federal criminal iabilily of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the USAO as of the date of dtis plea agreement The federal plea agreement draft revised by Lourie and Acosta on September included that language When Ute defense team reverted to negotiation of state charges Villafana advised them the context of a non-prosecution agreement the USAO may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others The next day Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA referring to tire four named assistants 223any employee of tire named company and 223any unnamed co-conspirators for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation The language was finally revised by Villafana to prohibit prosecution of 223any potential co-conspirators of Epstein including but not limited to tire four named assistants In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Villafafia 2s counsel and Lourie both noted that the non-prosecution provision could bind only the USAO and Lourie further opined that it was limited to certain specified federal charges and a time-limited scope of conduct Although the non-prosecution provision in the NPA did not explicitly contain such limitations those limitations were included in other parts of the agreement CA/Aronberg-0634 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM entitled to significant weight and OPR credits them OPR finds therefore that the emails in question do not themselves establish that Villafana or any other subject acted to improperly benefit Epstein was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences or sought to silence victims The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Lourie or Villafana Agreed to the NPAs Provision Promising Not to Prosecute Potential Co-conspirators in Order to Protect Any of Epsteins Political Celebrity or Other Influential Associates OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA-Villafaiia Lourie and Acosta-to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute any potential co-conspirators of Epstein in addition to four named individuals to determine whether that provision resulted from the subjects improper favoritism towards Epstein or an improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epsteins known associates Other than various drafts of the NP A and of a federal plea agreement OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it or even gave it much consideration Drafts of the NP A and of the federal plea agreement show that the final broad language promising not to prosecute any potential co-conspirators of Epstein evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense The provision expanded as Villafana and defense counsel exchanged drafts of first a proposed federal plea agreement and then of the NPA with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the provision As the NPA drafting process concluded Villafana circulated to Lourie and another supervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision telling Lourie it was some of defense counsels requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people and commenting only I dont think it hurts us In a reply email Lourie responded to another issue As set forth in OPRs factual discussion early in the negotiations over a federal plea agreement the defense sought a non-prosecution provision applicable to only four female named assistants of Epstein and to unnamed employees of one of his companies Villafana initially countered with standard language referring to unnamed co-conspirators so as to avoid highlighting for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge Nonetheless drafts of the NPA sent by Lefkowitz after Villafanas email continued to include language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees Villafana however internally circulated drafts of a federal plea agreement that included language stating This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the USAO as of the date of this plea agreement The federal plea agreement draft revised by Lourie and Acosta on September included that language When the defense team reverted to negotiation of state charges Villafana advised them In the context of a non-prosecution agreement the USAO may be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others The next day Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA referring to the four named assistants any employee of the named company and any unnamed co-conspirators for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation The language was finally revised by Villafana to prohibit prosecution of any potential co-conspirators of Epstein including but not limited lo U1e four named assistants In conunenting on OPRs draft report Villafanas counsel and Lourie both noted Um the non-prosecution provision could bind only U1e USAO and Lourie further opined Um it was limited to certain specified federal charges and a time-limited scope of conduct Although U1e non-prosecution provision in the NPA did not ex-plicitly contain such limitations those limitations were included in otl1er parts of the agreement CA/Aronberg-0634 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Villafana had raised defense counsel 2s attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the agreement but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute co conspirators or ask Villafana to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the government 2s interests In a subsequent email about the draft NPA Villafana asked Lourie for 223any other thoughts but there is no indication that he provided further input OPR found no document that suggested Villafana and Lourie discussed the provision further or that the other individuals who were copied on Villafana 2s email referencing the provision 227her immediate supervisor the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office and Villafana 2s on or had substantive discussions about it Villafana told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the non prosecution provision 223doesn 2t hurt us Villafana assumed that they agreed with her assessment Villafana told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision agreeing not to prosecute 223any potential co-conspirators but she remembered generally that defense counsel told her Epstein wanted make sure that he 2s the only one who takes the blame for what happened Villafana told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein 2s conduct was his own 223dirty little secret Villafana said that press coverage at the time of Epstein 2s arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein 2s illicit activity and that none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epstein 2s well-known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later.238 Villafana acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein 2s longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite but according to Villafana in they 223didn 2t have any specific evidence against her Accordingly Villafana believed that the only 223co-conspirators of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name.240 Villafana also told OPR that the focus of the USAO 2s investigation was Epstein and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he entered a plea.241 Because Villafana was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other unspecified 223co-conspirators Villafana told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time it did not occur to her that the reference to other 223potential co-conspirators might be used to protect any of Epstein 2s influential associates Lourie who was transitioning to his detail at the Department 2s Criminal Division at the time Villafana forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision told OPR that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it Villafana told OPR that 223none of die victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them It was only Jeffrey Epstein The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein 2s conduct but die conduct involving the then minor did not occur in Florida The FBI had learned diat one of Epstein 2s female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one girl in Epstein 2s presence this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom die defense sought die government 2s agreement not to prosecute from the outset Villafaha explained to OPR diat this individual was herself believed to also have been at one time a victim Villafana told OPR diat die USAO had decided diat girls who recruited odier girls would not be prosecuted CA/Aronberg-0635 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Villafana had raised defense counsels attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the agreement but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute co conspirators or ask Villafana to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the governments interests In a subsequent email about the draft NPA Villafana asked Lourie for any other thoughts but there is no indication that he provided further input OPR found no document that suggested Villafana and Lourie discussed the provision further or that the other individuals who were copied on Villafanas email referencing the provision-her immediate supervisor the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office and Villafanas co-counsel-commented on or had substantive discussions about it Villafana told OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the non prosecution provision doesnt hurt us Villafana assumed that they agreed with her assessment Villafana told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision agreeing not to prosecute any potential co-conspirators but she remembered generally that defense counsel told her Epstein wanted to make sure that hes the only one who takes the blame for what happened Villafana told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epsteins conduct was his own dirty little secret Villafana said that press coverage at the time of Epsteins arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epsteins illicit activity and that none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NP A was signed told the investigators about sexual activity with any of Epsteins well-known contacts about whom allegations arose many years later Villafana acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epsteins longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite but according to Villafana in they didnt have any specific evidence against her Accordingly Villafana believed that the only co-conspirators of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name Villafana also told OPR that the focus of the USAO investigation was Epstein and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he entered a plea Because Villafana was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other unspecified co-conspirators Villafana told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time it did not occur to her that the reference to other potential co-conspirators might be used to protect any of Epsteins influential associates Lourie who was transitioning to his detail at the Departments Criminal Division at the time Villafana forwarded to him the draft NP A containing the non-prosecution provision told OPR that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it Villafana told OPR that none of t11e victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them It was only Jeffrey Epstein The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epsteins conduct but t11e conduct im,olving the then minor did not occur in Florida The FBI had learned that one of Epsteins female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one girl in Epsteins presence this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom the defense sought t11e governments agreement not to prosecute from the outset Villafana explained to OPR t11at this individual was herself believed to also have been at one time a victim Villafana told OPR t11at t11e USAO had decided t11at girls who recruited ot11er girls would not be prosecuted CNAronberg-0635 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Lourie described the promise not to prosecute 223potential co-conspirators as 223unusual and told OPR that he not know why it was included in the agreement but added that it would be 223unlike me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful Lourie posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein 223theoretically could been charged as co-conspirators He told OPR that when he saw the provision he may have understood the reference to unnamed 223co-conspirators as message to any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision But he told OPR that Epstein was always 223the focus of the federal investigation and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face 223meaningful consequences for his actions Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA the extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein going to jail Whether some of his employees go to jail or other lesser involved individuals is not the focus of this Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafana and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate Finally Sloman who was not involved in negotiating the NPA told OPR that in retrospect he understood the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein 2s four assistants and it 223never dawned on him that it was intended to shield anyone else This broad provision promising not to prosecute 223any potential co-conspirators is troubling and as discussed more fully later in this Report OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators Villafana precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense it appears unlikely to been designed to protect the victims and there is no indication that at the time the subjects believed that was the purpose However the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants and OPR found no record indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company Accordingly OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta Lourie or Villafana agreed to the non prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein 2s political celebrity or other influential associates.242 OPR 2s Investigation Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal As previously stated Sloman was on vacation when Villafana included the provision in draft plea agreements and not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA iliat were circulated during liis absence Menchel left the USAO on August before the parties drafted the NPA CA/Aronberg-0636 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Lourie described the promise not to prosecute potential co-conspirators as unusual and told OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement but added that it would be unlike me ifl read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful Lourie posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein theoretically could have been charged as co-conspirators He told OPR that when he saw the provision he may have understood the reference to unnamed co-conspirators as a message to any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision But he told OPR that Epstein was always the focus of the federal investigation and he would have viewed the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face meaningful consequences for his actions Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA to the extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision I can speculate that my thinking would have been the focus is on Epstein going to jail Whether some of his employees go to jail or other lesser involved individuals is not the focus of this Acosta also told OPR that he assumed Villafana and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate Finally Sloman who was not involved in negotiating the NP A told OPR that in retrospect he understood the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epsteins four assistants and it never dawned on him that it was intended to shield anyone else This broad provision promising not to prosecute any potential co-conspirators is troubling and as discussed more fully later in this Report OPR did not find evidence showing that the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete information regarding possible co-conspirators Villafana precipitously revised a more narrow provision sought by the defense Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense it appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims and there is no indication that at the time the subjects believed that was the purpose However the USAO had not indicated interest in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants and OPR found no record indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company Accordingly OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta Lourie or Villafana agreed to the non prosecution provision to protect any of Epsteins political celebrity or other influential associates OPRs Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on That Basis One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal As previously stated Sloman was on vacation when Villafafia included the provision in draft plea agreements and did not monitor U1e case or c01mnent on the various iterations of the NP A that were circulated during his absence Menchel left the USAO on August before the parties drafted the NPA CA/Aronberg-0636 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM investigation.243 Media reports in suggested Epstein was released from his state incarceration 223early because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern District of New York involving Epstein 2s former employer Bear Stearns At the time Villafana was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they 223had never heard of Epstein and he was providing 223absolutely no cooperation to the government In Villafana reported to senior colleagues that 223this is urban myth The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true Villafana told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New York was 223completely false Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an 223intelligence asset In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating witness in a federal matter OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or 223intelligence asset or that anyone 227including any of the subjects of OPR 2s investigation 227believed that to be the case or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a basis OPR did not find any reference to Epstein 2s purported cooperation or even a suggestion that he had assisted in a different matter in any of the numerous communications sent by defense counsel to the USAO and the Department It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed Accordingly OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR 2s investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this matter OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal investigation through the NPA Acosta 2s flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage The NPA relied on state authorities to implement its key terms leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over the process Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA such as gain time and community control many other key issues were not such as work release and mechanisms for implementing the provision Important provisions such as promising not to prosecute all 223potential co-conspirators were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors In addition although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a See e.g Julie Brown 223Perversion of Justice How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime Miami Herald Nov When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his press conference in answering a media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an 223intelligence asset Acosta stated to OPR that 223the answer is no Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information CA/Aronberg-0637 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I investigation Media reports in suggested Epstein was released from his state incarceration early because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern District of New York involving Epsteins former employer Bear Steams At the time Villafana was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they had never heard of Epstein and he was providing absolutely no cooperation to the government In Villafana reported to senior colleagues that this is urban myth The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of it is true Villafana told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New York was completely false Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an intelligence asset In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating witness in a federal matter OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating witness or intelligence asset or that anyone-including any of the subjects of OPRs investigation-believed that to be the case or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a basis OPR did not find any reference to Epsteins purported cooperation or even a suggestion that he had assisted in a different matter in any of the numerous communications sent by defense counsel to the USAO and the Department It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed Accordingly OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPRs investigation provided Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal investigation and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for cooperation in any matter ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVlNG THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this matter OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal investigation through the NPA Acostas flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the federal investigation through an NP A that was too difficult to administer leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage The NPA relied on state authorities to implement its key terms leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over the process Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA such as.gain time and community control many other key issues were not such as work release and mechanisms for implementing the provision Important provisions such as promising not to prosecute all potential co-conspirators were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors In addition although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a See e.g Julie Brown Pe,version of Justice How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime Miami Herald Nov When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his press conference in answering a media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an intelligence asset Acosta stated to OPR tlmt the answer is no Acosta was made aware tlmt OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence infonnation CA/Aronberg-0637 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM successful federal prosecution Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately addressing ways in which a federal case potentially could been strengthened such as by obtaining Epstein 2s missing computer equipment Finally a lack of coordination within the USAO compounded Acosta 2s flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of drafting the NPA a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it received These problems were moreover entirely avoidable because federal prosecution and potentially a federal plea agreement existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution In evaluating Acosta 2s conduct OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that some of Epstein 2s conduct known today was not known in and that other circumstances have changed in the interim including some victims willingness to testify OPR has also evaluated Acosta 2s decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good faith even if the decision in question may not have led to the 223best result that potentially could have been obtained Nonetheless after considering all of the available evidence and the totality of the then-existing circumstances OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would reasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment A Acosta 2s Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution The Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court opinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal governments the power to prosecute for the same act Responding to the Court 2s concerns about the 223potential for abuse in a rule permitting duplicate prosecutions the Department voluntarily adopted a policy of declining to bringa federal prosecution following a completed state prosecution for the same conduct except when necessary to advance a compelling federal interest See Rinaldi United States U.S at On its face the Petite policy applies to federal prosecutions that follow completed state prosecutions USAM 223This policy applies whenever there has been a prior state prosecution resulting in an acquittal a conviction including one resulting from a plea agreement or a dismissal or other termination of the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached When a state investigation or prosecution is still pending the policy does not apply Indeed even when a state prosecution has resulted in a decision on the merits the policy permits a subsequent federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites are satisfied a 223substantial federal interest exists 223the result in the prior state prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction on federal charges The policy also does not apply when 223the prior prosecution involved only a minor part of the contemplated federal charges No one with whom OPR spoke disputed that the federal government had a substantial interest in prosecuting Epstein In her prosecution memorandum Villafana identified five federal statutes-340.9 that Epstein had potentially violated The CEOS Chief described Villafana 2s assessment of these statutes as 223exhaustive and he concurred with her analysis of their applicability to the facts of the case Epstein 2s crimes involved the sexual exploitation of children interstate travel and the use of a facility of interstate commerce all of which were areas of federal concern CA/Aronberg-0638 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM successful federal prosecution Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately addressing ways in which a federal case potentially could have been strengthened such as by obtaining Epsteins missing com put er equipment Final I a I ack of coordination within the USAO compounded Acostas flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of drafting the NP A a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it received These problems were moreover entirely avoidable because federal prosecution and potentially a federal plea agreement existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution In evaluating Acostas conduct OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that some of Epsteins conduct known today was not known in and that other circumstances have changed in the interim including some victims willingness to testify OPR has also evaluated Acostas decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good faith even if the decision in question may not have led to the best result that potentially could have been obtained Nonetheless after considering all of the available evidence and the totality of the then-existing circumstances OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would reasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment A Acostas Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns and Failed to Consider the Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution The Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court opinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal governments the power to prosecute for the same act Responding to the Courts concerns about the potential for abuse in a rule permitting duplicate prosecutions the Department voluntarily adopted a policy of declining to bring a federal prosecution following a completed state prosecution for the same conduct except when necessary to advance a compelling federal interest See Rinaldi United States U.S at On its face the Petite policy applies to federal prosecutions that follow completed state prosecutions USAM This policy applies whenever there has been a prior state prosecution resulting in an acquittal a conviction including one resulting from a plea agreement or a dismissal or other termination of the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached When a state investigation or prosecution is still pending the policy does not apply Indeed even when a state prosecution has resulted in a decision on the merits the policy permits a subsequent federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites are satisfied a substantial federal interest exists the result in the prior state prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction on federal charges The policy also does not apply when the prior prosecution involved only a minor part of the contemplated federal charges No one with whom OPR spoke disputed that the federal government had a substantial interest in prosecuting Epstein In her prosecution memorandum Villafana identified five federal statutes that Epstein had potentially violated The CEOS Chief described Villafaftas assessment of these statutes as exhaustive and he concurred with her analysis of their applicability to the facts of the case Epsteins crimes involved the sexual exploitation of children interstate travel and the use of a facility of interstate commerce all of which were areas of federal concern CA/Aronberg-0638 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Notably in the early the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child sex trafficking including Project Safe Childhood and Congress had then recently passed the PROTECT Act Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was important federal interest which in Epstein 2s case was compounded by the 223sordidness of the acts involved and the number of victims It is also clear that because state case against Epstein was still pending and had not reached a conviction acquittal or other decision on the merits the Petite policy did not apply and certainly not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein He had been charged with one state charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions involving one or other persons without regard to age charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct under federal investigation Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy its face did not apply Moreover the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government 2s assumption of prosecutorial responsibility and despite having obtained an indictment held back on proceeding with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government 2s involvement In these circumstances the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida Even if the Petite policy had applied OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case.245 Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein the fact that the Petite policy did not apply and the State Attorney 2s willingness to hold state prosecution in abeyance pending the federal government 2s assumption of the case Acosta viewed the federal government 2s role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism.246 In essence Acosta believed that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state 2s authority He explained his reasoning to OPR In the Office of Enforcement Operations the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges it would not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim The office also noted that if other factors existed such as use of the internet to contact victims those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy if it did apply In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Acosta 2s counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta 2s concerns from those of the other subjects However OPR 2s investigation made clear that although Acosta shared his subordinates concerns about the strength of the case victim-witness credibility and the novelty of some legal theories he alone focused on federalism issues Acosta 2s counsel also asserted that OPR 223misunderstands and devalues Sccrctaiy Acosta 2s very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws and counsel further noted Acosta 2s concerns that 223bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome dial set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater liann to trafficking victims Although OPR carefully considered counsel 2s arguments and agrees tliat it was appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for Ilie Department anti trafficking efforts OPR does not believe tliat those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA which for the reasons discussed in this Section failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the state system to his benefit CA/Aronberg-0639 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Notably in the early the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child sex trafficking including Project Safe Childhood and Congress had then recently passed the PROTECT Act Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was an important federal interest which in Epsteins case was compounded by the sordidness of the acts involved and the number of victims It is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not reached a conviction acquittal or other decision on the merits the Petite policy did not apply and certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein He had been charged with one state charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions involving one or more other persons without regard to age-a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct under federal investigation Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy on its face did not apply Moreover the State Attorney did not challenge the federal governments assumption of prosecutorial responsibility and despite having obtained an indictment held back on proceeding with the state prosecution in deference to the federal governments involvement In these circumstances the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida Even if the Petite policy had applied OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein the fact that the Petite policy did not apply and the State Attorneys willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance pending the federal governments assumption of the case Acosta viewed the federal governments role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles offederalism In essence Acosta believed that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the states authority He explained his reasoning to OPR In the Office of Enforcement Operations the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges it would not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim The office also noted that if other factors existed such as use of the internet to contact victims those factors nlight warrant a waiver of the policy if it did apply In commenting on OPR draft report Acostas counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acostas concerns from those of the other subjects However OPRs imestigation made clear that although Acosta slmrcd llis subordinates concerns about the strength of U1e case victim-witness credibility and U1e novelty of some legal U1eories he alone focused on federalism issues Acostas counsel also asserted ilIBt OPR nlisunderstands and devalues Secretary Acostas very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws and counsel further noted Acostas concerns that bringing a case wiU1 serious cvidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome til3t set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater hann to trafficking victims AIU10ugh OPR carefully considered cow1Sels arguments and agrees ilIBt it was appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might lIBve for U1e Departments anti trafficking efforts OPR does not believe Uiat those concerns warranted resolving the matter Urrough the NPA wllich for the reasons discussed in tllis Section failed to satisfy tl1e federal interest and allowed Epstein to nianipulate the state system to llis benefit CNAronberg-0639 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The prosecution was going forward on the part of the state and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign state saying you 2re not doing enough when to my mind the whole idea of the Petite policy is to recognize that the state is an independent entity and that we should presume that what they 2re doing is correct even if we don 2t like the outcome except in the most unusual of circumstances Acosta told OPR that 223absent USAO intervention the state 2s prosecution of Epstein would have become final and accordingly it was 223prudent to employ Petite policy analysis In Acosta 2s view 223the federal responsibility in this unique situation was merely to serve as a 223back stop to state authorities to ensure that there was no miscarriage of justice Acosta told OPR that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI 2s attention if the State Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein 2s incarceration Acosta therefore decided that the USAO could avert a 223manifest injustice by forcing state to do more and require Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender Acosta 2s reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted Acosta 2s repeated references to a 223miscarriage of justice or 223manifest injustice echoes the 223manifestly inadequate language used in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with a criminal case after a completed state prosecution Nothing in the Petite policy however requires similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state prosecution even if the state is already investigating the same offense The goal of the Petite policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense not to compel the federal government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case particularly one in which state officials involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it and there were questions regarding the state prosecutor 2s commitment to the case Acosta told OPR that 223there are any number of instances where the federal government or state government can proceed and state charges are substantially less and different and the federal government stands aside and lets the state proceed The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a prosecution however does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so particularly in a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists Indeed the State Attorney told OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators typically because federal charges result in 223the best sentence Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.248 Despite the Ashcroft Memo 2s directive that federal prosecutors pursue 223the most serious readily provable offense Acosta 2s decision to push 223the state to do a little bit more does not approach that standard In fact Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA not represent an 223appropriate punishment in the federal system nor even 223the best outcome in the state system and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI rather than as a referral from the PBPD the outcome might have been different As U.S Attorney Acosta had the authority to Letter from Alexander Acosta whom it may concern at I Mar published online in The Daily Beast Villafana estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was to months imprisonment CA/Aronberg-0640 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The prosecution was going forward on the part of the state 267and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign state saying youre not doing enough when to my mind the whole idea of the Petite policy is to recognize that the state is an independent entity and that we should presume that what theyre doing is correct even if We dont like the outcome except in the most unusual of circumstances Acosta told OPR that absent USAO intervention the states prosecution of Epstein would have become final and accordingly it was prudent to employ Petite policy analysis In Acostas view the federal responsibility in this unique situation was merely to serve as a back stop to state authorities to ensure that there was no miscarriage of justice Acosta told OPR that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBIs attention if the State Attorney had pursued charges that required Epsteins incarceration Acosta therefore decided that the USAO could avert a manifest injustice by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender Acostas reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted Acostas repeated references to a miscarriage of justice or manifest injustice echoes the manifestly inadequate language used in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with a criminal case after a completed state prosecution Nothing in the Petite policy however requires similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state prosecution even if the state is already investigating the same offense The goal of the Petite policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense not to compel the federal government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case particularly one in which state officials involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it and there were questions regarding the state prosecutors commitment to the case Acosta told OPR that there are any number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed and state charges are substantially less and different and the federal government stands aside and lets the state proceed The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a prosecution however does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so particularly in a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists Indeed the State Attorney told OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators typically because federal charges result in the best sentence Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines Despite the Ashcroft Memos directive that federal prosecutors pursue the most serious readily provable offense Acostas decision to push the state to do a little bit more does not approach that standard In fact Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NP A did not represent an appropriate punishment in the federal system nor even the best outcome in the state system and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI rather than as a referral from the PBPD the outcome might have been different As U.S Attorney Acosta had the authority to Letter from Alexander Acosta To whom it may concern at I Mar published online in The Daily Beast Villafana estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was to months imprisonment CA/Aronberg-0640 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM depart from the Ashcroft Memo He told OPR however that he not recall discussing the Ashcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record suggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA Instead it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension between federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case on the one hand and his broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about 223federalism on the other hand OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal government 2s role in prosecuting Epstein too narrowly and through the wrong prism Furthermore Acosta 2s federalism concerns about intruding on the state 2s autonomy resulted in an outcome 227the NPA 227that intruded far more on the state 2s autonomy than a decision to pursue a federal prosecution would have.249 By means of the NPA the federal government dictated to the state the charges the sentence the timing and certain conditions that the state had to obtain during the state 2s own prosecution Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that his 223attempt to backstop the state here rebounded because in the process it ended up being arguably more intrusive Acosta 2s concern about invading the state 2s authority led to additional negative consequences Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to 223soften its tone by substituting provisions requiring Epstein to make his 223best efforts for language that appeared to dictate certain actions to the state In so doing however Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement making it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply OPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a mechanism that relied completely on state action Acosta considered the numerous disadvantages of having Epstein plead guilty in the state court system a system in which none of the subjects had practiced and with which they were unfamiliar Villafana recognized that there were lot of ways to manipulate state sentences and she told OPR that she was concerned from the outset of negotiations about entering into the NPA because by sending the case back to the state the USAO was 223giving up all control over what was going on Villafana also told OPR that defense counsel 223had a lot of experience with the state system We did not Epstein 2s ability to obtain work release a provision directly contrary to the USAO 2s intent with respect to Epstein 2s sentence is a clear example of the problem faced by the prosecutors when trying to craft a plea that depended on a judicial system with which they were unfamiliar and over which they had no control Although the issue of gain time was considered and addressed in the NPA none of the subject attorneys negotiating the NPA realized until after the NPA was signed that Epstein might be eligible for work release Acosta in particular told OPR that it was typical to provide that kind of work release in these cases that would been news to me Because work release was not anticipated the NPA not specifically address it and the USAO was unable to foreclose Epstein from applying for admission to the program The Petite policy only applies to the Department of Justice and federal prosecutions It does not prevent state authorities from pursuing state cliarges after a federal prosecution See e.g United States Nichols and State Nichols dual prosecution for acts committed in tire bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building However in practice and to use their resources most efficiently state authorities often choose not to pursue state cliarges if the federal prosecution results in a conviction CA/Aronberg-0641 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM depart from the Ashcroft Memo He told OPR however that he did not recall discussing the Ashcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record suggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal investigation through the NP A Instead it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension between federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case on the one hand and his broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about federalism on the other hand OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal governments role in prosecuting Epstein too narrowly and through the wrong prism Furthermore Acostas federalism concerns about intruding on the states autonomy resulted in an outcome-the NP A-that intruded far more on the states autonomy than a decision to pursue a federal prosecution would have By means of the NP A the federal government dictated to the state the charges the sentence the timing and certain conditions that the state had to obtain during the states own prosecution Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that his attempt to backstop the state here rebounded because in the process it ended up being arguably more intrusive Acostas concern about invading the states authority led to additional negative consequences Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to soften its tone by substituting provisions requiring Epstein to make his best efforts for language that appeared to dictate certain actions to the state In so doing however Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement making it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply OPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a mechanism that relied completely on state action Acosta considered the numerous disadvantages of having Epstein plead guilty in the state court system a system in which none of the subjects had practiced and with which they were unfamiliar Villafana recognized that there were a lot of ways to manipulate state sentences and she told OPR that she was concerned from the outset of negotiations about entering into the NP A because by sending the case back to the state the USAO was giving up all control over what was going on Villafafi.a also told OPR that defense counsel had a lot of experience with the state system We did not Epsteins ability to obtain work release a provision directly contrary to the USAOs intent with respect to Epsteins sentence is a clear example of the problem faced by the prosecutors when trying to craft a plea that depended on a judicial system with which they were unfamiliar and over which they had no control Although the issue of gain time was considered and addressed in the NPA none of the subject attorneys negotiating the NPA realized until after the NPA was signed that Epstein might be eligible for work release Acosta in particular told OPR that if it was typical to provide that kind of work release in these cases that would have been news to me Because work release was not anticipated the NP A did not specifically address it and the USAO was unable to foreclose Epstein from applying for admission to the program The Petite policy only applies to the Department of Justice and federal prosecutions It does not prevent state authorities from pursuing state charges after a federal prosecution See e.g United States Nichols and State l./ichols dual prosecution for acts committed in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building However in practice and to use their resources most efficiently state authorities often choose not to pursue state charges if the federal prosecution results in a com,iction CA/Aronberg-0641 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acosta 2s decision to create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal investigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein Acosta told OPR that one of the core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge requiring registration as a sexual offender He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the beginning and from which he never wavered However the USAO failed to anticipate certain factors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had a residence In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender registration the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least at the time of her interactions with Epstein even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim The victim 2s age made a difference as the age of consent in New Mexico where Epstein had a residence was therefore Epstein was not required to register in that state As a letter from defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorney 2s Office made clear the defense team had thoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Florida 2s sexual offender registration requirement OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the USAO Finally Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI 2s attention because of a concern that the State Attorney 2s Office had succumbed to 223pressure from defense counsel Villafana told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with Villafana he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was dissatisfied with the State Attorney 2s Office 2s handling of the case Shortly before the NPA was signed moreover additional information came to light that suggested the State Attorney 2s Office was predisposed to manipulating the process in Epstein 2s favor Specifically during the September meeting at the state prosecutor 2s suggestion the USAO team agreed with Acosta 2s subsequent approval to permit Epstein to plead guilty to one state charge of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution rather than the three charges the USAO had originally specified The state prosecutor assured Lourie that the selected charge would require Epstein to register as a sexual offender Shortly thereafter the USAO was told by defense counsel that despite the assurances made to Lourie the state prosecutor had advised it turned out 227that a plea to that particular offense would not require him to register as a sexual offender Yet despite this evidence which at least suggested that the state authorities should not have been considered to be a reliable partner in enforcing the NPA Acosta did not alter his decision about proceeding with a process that depended completely on state authorities for its successful execution OPR finds that Acosta was reasonably aware of the facts and circumstances presented by this case He stated that he engaged in discussions about various aspects of the case with Sloman and Menchel and relied upon them for their evaluation of the legal and evidentiary issues and for their assessment of trial issues Acosta was copied on many substantive emails reviewed and revised drafts of the NPA and approved the final agreement Yet rather than focusing on whether the state 2s prosecution was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein Acosta focused on achieving the minimum outcome necessary to satisfy the state 2s interest as defined in part by the state 2s indictment by using the threat of a federal prosecution to dictate the terms of CA/Aronberg-0642 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acostas decision to create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal investigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein Acosta told OPR that one of the core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge requiring registration as a sexual offender He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the beginning and from which he never wavered However the USAO failed to anticipate certain factors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had a residence In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender registration the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least at the time of her interactions with Epstein even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim The victims age made a difference as the age of consent in New Mexico where Epstein had a residence was therefore Epstein was not required to register in that state As a letter from defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorneys Office made clear the defense team had thoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Floridas sexual offender registration requirement OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the USAO Finally Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBIs attention because of a concern that the State Attorneys Office had succumbed to pressure from defense counsel Villafana told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with Villafana he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was dissatisfied with the State Attorneys Offices handling of the case Shortly before the NPA was signed moreover additional information came to light that suggested the State Attorneys Office was predisposed to manipulating the process in Epsteins favor Specifically during the September meeting at the state prosecutors suggestion the USAO team agreed with Acostas subsequent approval to permit Epstein to plead guilty to one state charge of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution rather than the three charges the USAO had originally specified The state prosecutor assured Lourie that the selected charge would require Epstein to register as a sexual offender Shortly thereafter the USAO was told by defense counsel that despite the assurances made to Lourie the state prosecutor had advised Epstein-incorrectly it turned out-that a plea to that particular offense would not require him to register as a sexual offender Yet despite this evidence which at least suggested that the state authorities should not have been considered to be a reliable partner in enforcing the NPA Acosta did not alter his decision about proceeding with a process that depended completely on state authorities for its successful execution OPR finds that Acosta was reasonably aware of the facts and circumstances presented by this case He stated that he engaged in discussions about various aspects of the case with Sloman and Menchel and relied upon them for their evaluation of the legal and evidentiary issues and for their assessment of trial issues Acosta was copied on many substantive emails reviewed and revised drafts of the NP A and approved the final agreement Yet rather than focusing on whether the states prosecution was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein Acosta focused on achieving the minimum outcome necessary to satisfy the states interest as defined in part by the states indictment by using the threat of a federal prosecution to dictate the terms of CA/Aronberg-0642 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Epstein 2s state guilty plea.250 As U.S Attorney Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances his decision to do so reflected poor judgment Acosta 2s application of Petite policy principles was too expansive his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case The leniency resulting from Acosta 2s decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant leverage in negotiating with Epstein Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA was in part due to concerns about the merits of the case and concerns about whether the government could win at trial Yet Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein 2s defense attorneys before the investigation was completed As the investigation progressed the FBI continued to locate additional victims and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer In other words at the time of Acosta 2s decision the USAO did not know the full scope of Epstein 2s conduct whether given Epstein 2s other domestic and foreign residences his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders In addition Villafana planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly Acosta ended the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially significant evidence the computers removed from Epstein 2s home prior to the PBPD 2s execution of a search warrant The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence and that before state Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state he would have received a two-year sentence and in that circumstance the PBPD would not have brought tire case to the FBI OPR was unable to verily that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a two year sentence OPR 2s investigation confirmed however that the PBPD brought tire case to the FBI because the PBPD Chief was dissatisfied with the state 2s handling of the matter In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Acosta 2s attorney stated that Acosta 223acptcd OPR 2s conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather titan proceeding with a federal indictment or a federal plea was in hindsight poor judgment Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO 2s handling of the matter 223would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention No one foresaw tire additional challenges that tire chosen resolution would cause And the NPA relied too much on state authorities who gave Epstein and his counsel too much wiggle-room Acosta 2s counsel also noted tliat Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report 223did not challenge OPR 2s authority welcomed the review and cooperated fully Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafana identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators at the time tliat the USAO extended the terms of its offer there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals cooperation against Epstein The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with two female assistants on August as Epstein 2s private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands but agents were unable to locate on board the plane CA/Aronberg-0643 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Epsteins state guilty plea As U.S Attorney Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances his decision to do so reflected poor judgment Acostas application of Petite policy principles was too expansive his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NP A The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case The leniency resulting from Acostas decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing evidence that could have changed the compl,exion of the case or afforded the USAO significant leverage in negotiating with Epstein Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NP A was in part due to concerns about the merits of the case and concerns about whether the government could win at trial Yet Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epsteins defense attorneys before the investigation was completed As the investigation progressed the FBI continued to locate additional victims and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer ln other words at the time of Acostas decision the USAO did not know the full scope of Epsteins conduct whether given Epsteins other domestic and foreign residences his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders In addition Villafana planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation but that step had not been taken Most importantly Acosta ended the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially significant evidence the computers removed from Epsteins home prior to the PBPDs execution of a search warrant The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence and that before the state Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pied to the original charges contemplated by the state he would have received a two-year sentence and in that circumstance the PBPD would not have brought the case to the FBI QPR was unable to verify that charges originalli contemplated by the state would have resulted in a two year sentence OPRs investigation confirmed however that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD Chief was dissatisfied with the states handling of the matter In commenting on OPRs draft report Acostas attorney stated that Acosta accepted OPRs conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or a federd.i plea was in hindsight poor judgment Acosta also acknowledged that the USAOs handling of the matter would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention No one foresaw the additional challenges that the chosen resolution would cause And the NP A relied too much on state authorities who gave Epstein and his counsel too much wiggle-room Acostas counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report did not challenge OPRs authority welcomed the review and cooperated fully Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafana identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators at the time that the USAO extended the tenns of its offer there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals cooperation against Epstein The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with two female assistants on August as Epsteins private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane CNAronberg-0643 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM m?z v?an??ﺆ i ki j?J iF?t?n??qH8 WW Ҵ??T?X dn a?pﾭ?ݵ ڵmE?i?n?CJ X?a?jB:?M TV?M5 Zm i?E??B i??MQN j??g sA T?j?iSa dp aBa4 XT A De?F 4Tд.а?C zJ y??H r2H??QR?H?il a _P?d hY WI??w a8m T??V ҐU y?d uW?_ zIp P3 Bx MJ?Dta2 Bj P?z?ŧo??U?O8 L?T A?8Fl i a A L/ZƋv E?V a?Ѝ?A t?O?m H?s?E?0H?h?q??St oh di I?O _M?ߤ?p H7N kw?z zv??lm ת?W K?c HU c?Ƭ?Xרx/L?a a À?IΠ a M?ޡ o?z I p?v7 ko??S?v??N?m i?ӯ?z?S?վ JӺl ڱ?g ئ5?DƔ?T Q??ƛ E4?j K?O M0 k?d?4?t?MSB?M5L Xa p?hD0?i MF 䮖_?JK2-i B?P??騅 N?-?li uOX-P?v?D 0Κwy i iZ H?tN dK k?Q?뵽 W?w a?w V??c!?Mu Je PD 전?T?H?f"d a i 8I i??A F??Y?d tk AIH A?-S ڢv?w dW?M г?Ba30bC wH I li Q??Oﵥt?i?Fv zI7I7 ç??I x?y search warrant was executed on that property the computer equipment associated with those cameras had been removed Villafana knew who had possession of the computer equipment Surveillance images might have shown the victims visits and photographic evidence of their appearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated argument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors The surveillance video might have shown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified Such images could have been powerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their visits to his home potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple 223solicitation case Epstein 2s personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence Villafana told OPR that the FBI had information that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters and one victim told agents that Epstein 2s assistant photographed her in the nude Based on this evidence and experience in other sex cases involving minors Villafana and several other witnesses opined OPR that the computers might have contained child pornography Moreover Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle it was reasonable to assume that he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the internet to be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling The interstate transmission of child pornography was a separate and serious federal crime that could have changed the entire complexion of the case against Epstein.253 Villafana told OPR the evidence had been what we suspected it was it would have put this case completely to bed It also would have completely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence Villafana attempted to obtain the missing computers After Villafana learned that an individual associated with one of Epstein 2s attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein 2s home she consulted with Department subject matter experts to determine how best to obtain the evidence Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors Villafana took legal steps to obtain the computer equipment Epstein 2s team sought to postpone compliance with the USAO 2s demand for the equipment In late June defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply in informing Sloman Menchel and Lourie of the request Villafana stressed that want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein 2s home prior to the state search warrant as soon as possible She agreed to extend the date for producing the computer equipment by one week until July On that day Epstein initiated litigation regarding the computer equipment That litigation was still pending at the end of July when Acosta decided to resolve U.S.C a provides in pertinent part Any person who induces any minor to engage in any sexually explicit conduct for Ure purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct slrall be punished if such person knows or lias reason to know tliat such visual depiction will be transmitted using any means or facility of interstate commerce or in or affecting interstate commerce or if Ural visual depiction was produced or transmitted using inaterials that liave been mailed slupped or transported in or affecting interstate or commerce by any means including by computer CA/Aronberg-0644 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM search warrant was executed on that property the computer equipment associated with those cameras had been removed Villafana knew who had possession of the computer equipment Surveillance images might have shown the victims visits and photographic evidence of their appearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated argument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors The surveillance video might have shown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified Such images could have been powerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their visits to his home potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple solicitation case Epsteins personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence Villafana told OPR that the FBI had infonnation that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters and one victim told agents that Epsteins assistant photographed her in the nude Based on this evidence and experience in other sex cases involving minors Villafana and several other witnesses opined to OPR that the computers might have contained child pornography Moreover Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle it was reasonable to assume that he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the internet to be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling The interstate transmission of child pornography was a separate and serious federal crime that could have changed the entire complexion of the case against Epstein Villafana told OPR If the evidence had been what we suspected it was it would have put this case completely to bed It also would have completely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence Villafana attempted to obtain the missing computers After Villafana learned that an individual associated with one of Epsteins attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epsteins home she consulted with Department subject matter experts to detennine how best to obtain the evidence Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors Villafana took legal steps to obtain the computer equipment Epsteins team sought to postpone compliance with the USAOs demand for the equipment In late June defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply in informing Sloman Menchel and Lourie of the request Villafana stressed that we want to get the computer equipment that was removed from Epsteins home prior to the state search warrant as soon as possible She agreed to extend the date for producing the computer equipment by one week until July On that day Epstein initiated litigation regarding the computer equipment That litigation was still pending at the end of July when Acosta decided to resolve U.S.C a provides in pertinent part CA Aronberg-0644 Any person who induces any minor to engage in any sexually c:-.-plicit conduct for U1c purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct shall be punished if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transmitted using any means or facility of interstate conunerce or in or affecting interstate conunerce orl if U1at visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials U1at have been mailed shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or conunerce by any means including by computer FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year sentence The FBI co-case agent told OPR that in a meeting to discuss the resolution at which the FBI was present the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a resolution until after the litigation was resolved but this suggestion was 223pushed under the rug without comment Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present the case agent recalled that Menchel led the meeting which occurred while the litigation was still pending Even after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense Villafana continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of the computer equipment On August she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose Epstein 2s efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the defense informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein at age and had been photographed in the nude A few days later Villafana told defense counsel that she had 223conferred with the appropriate people and we are not willing to agree to a stay Defense counsel then contacted Lourie who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the upcoming meeting with Acosta After the meeting and when the court sought to reschedule the hearing Villafana emailed Sloman to ask if she should 223put it off he replied 223Yes and the hearing was re-set for September As negotiations towards the NPA progressed however the hearing was postponed indefinitely Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached the agreement Villafana told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense team had reviewed the contents of Epstein 2s computers She told OPR that in her view 223the fact that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing was further evidence of the importance of the evidence OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate and continue with the NPA negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending and to agree to postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer evidence Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafana 2s efforts to obtain the missing computers but he believed that 223there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly regarding the plea Menchel Sloman and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafana 2s efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only 223vaguely Menchel expressed surprise to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain entire computer through the method utilized by Villafana telling OPR had not heard of that However the contemporaneous records show that Sloman Menchel and Lourie had each been aware in of Villafana 2s efforts to obtain Epstein 2s missing computer equipment Villafana kept Menchel in particular well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer equipment She sent to Menchel or copied him on several emails about her plan to obtain the computer equipment specifically her emails on May July and July all discussed her proposed steps Villafana told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions about her proposal to obtain the evidence Lourie also received Villafana 2s July email discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it and on one occasion he spoke directly CA/Aronberg-0645 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year sentence The FBI co-case agent told OPR that in a meeting to discuss the resolution at which the FBI was present the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a resolution until after the litigation was resolved but this suggestion was pushed under the rug without comment Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present the case agent recalled that Menchel led the meeting which occurred while the litigation was still pending Even after the NP A two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense Villafana continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of the computer equipment On August she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose Epsteins efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the defense informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein at age and had been photographed in the nude A few days later Villafana told defense counsel that she had conferred with the appropriate people and we are not willing to agree to a stay Defense counsel then contacted Lourie who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the upcoming meeting with Acosta After the meeting and when the court sought to reschedule the hearing Villafana emailed Sloman to ask if she should put it off he replied Yes and the hearing was re-set for September As negotiations towards the NPA progressed however the hearing was postponed indefinitely Ultimately the NP A itself put the issue to rest by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached the agreement Villafana told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense team had reviewed the contents of Epsteins computers She told OPR that in her view the fact that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing was further evidence of the importance of the evidence OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate and continue with the NPA negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending and to agree to postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer evidence Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafanas efforts to obtain the missing computers but he believed that there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly regarding the plea Menchel Sloman and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafanas efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only vaguely Menchel expressed surprise to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain an entire computer through the method utilized by Villafana telling OPR I had not heard of that However the contemporaneous records show that Sloman Menchel and Lourie had each been aware in of Villafafias efforts to obtain Epsteins missing computer equipment Villafana kept Menchel in particular well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer equipment She sent to Menchel or copied him on several emails about her plan to obtain the computer equipment specifically her emails on May July and July all discussed her proposed steps Villafana told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions about her proposal to obtain the evidence Lourie also received Villafanas July email discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it and on one occasion he spoke directly CA/Aronberg-0645 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM with one of Epstein 2s defense attorneys about it Sloman told OPR during his interview that he 223vaguely remembered the computer issue The documentary evidence confirms that he had at least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue 227when asked by Villafana whether to put off a September hearing on the litigation he told her to do so Finally as noted previously the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed of the USAO 2s efforts to obtain custody of Epstein 2s computers and that after the NPA was signed he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment The NPA itself provides that 223the federal investigation will be suspended and all pending legal process will be held in abeyance that Epstein will withdraw his 223motion to intervene and to quash certain legal process and further that the parties would 223maintain evidence subject to legal process that have been issued and including certain computer equipment inviolate until the NPA 2s terms had been fully satisfied at which point the legal process would be 223deemed withdrawn Emphasis added Acosta 2s numerous edits on the NPA 2s final draft suggest that he gave it a close read and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw or why the only type of evidence specified was 223certain computer equipment In addition Acosta told OPR that he worked closely with Sloman and Menchel consulted with them and relied on their counsel about the case Among other things Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial Therefore although it is possible that Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO 2s efforts to obtain the computer equipment without consulting Acosta once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA Acosta was on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein 2s missing computer equipment Villafana knew where the computers were litigation over the demand for the equipment was already underway there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant 227and potentially critical 227information and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254 Instead the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acosta 2s decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges By agreeing to postpone the litigation the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the government 2s ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing postponing the litigation to use it as leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable Lourie suggested in his response to his interview transcript that the court might liave precluded production of the computers However OPR saw no evidence indicating that Villafana or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so and Villafana had consulted with the Departments subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment CA/Aronberg-0646 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM with one of Epsteins defense attorneys about it Sloman told OPR during his interview that he vaguely remembered the computer issue The documentary evidence confirms that he had at least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue-when asked by Villafana whether to put off a September hearing on the litigation he told her to do so Finally as noted previously the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed of the USAOs efforts to obtain custody of Epsteins computers and that after the NPA was signed he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment The NPA itself provides that the federal investigation will be suspended and all pending legal process will be held in abeyance that Epstein will withdraw his motion to intervene and to quash certain legal process and further that the parties would maintain evidence subject to legal process that have been issued and including certain computer equipment inviolate until the NPAs terms had been fully satisfied at which point the legal process would be deemed withdrawn Emphasis added Acostas numerous edits on the NPAs final draft suggest that he gave it a close read and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw or why the only type of evidence specified was certain computer equipment In addition Acosta told OPR that he worked closely with Sloman and Menchel consulted with them and relied on their counsel about the case Among other things Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial Therefore although it is possible that Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAOs efforts to obtain the computer equipment without consulting Acosta once Acosta reviewed the draft NP A Acosta was on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epsteins missing computer equipment Villafana knew where the computers were litigation over the demand for the equipment was already underway there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant-and potentially critical-information and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his computers disclosed Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did or that there was any significant consideration of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers Instead the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that could have significantly changed Acostas decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges By agreeing to postpone the litigation the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much earlier and on terms more favorable to the government The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in the NPA that permanently ended the governments ability to obtain possible evidence of significant crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing postponing the litigation to use it as leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable Lourie suggested in his response to his interview transcript that the court 1night have precluded production of the computers However OPR saw no evidence indicating that Villafana or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so and Villafana had consulted with the Departments subject matter ex-perts before initiating her action to obtain tl1e equipment CA/Aronberg-0646 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM To be clear OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence before reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a resolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues Every case is different and must be judged on its own facts In this case however given the unorthodox nature of the state-based resolution the fact that Acosta 2s decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different track than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff the nature and scope of Epstein 2s criminal conduct the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from Epstein 2s residence and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal conduct Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences of pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing from the express terms of the NPA In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge Acosta lost sight of the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be pursued The decision to forgo the government 2s efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to pursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of all the costs and benefits of the proposed action OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully considered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely.255 OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution The heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency afforded him concerning his sentence After offering a deal that required a 223non-negotiable 24-month term of incarceration Acosta agreed to resolve it for an 18-month term of incarceration knowing that gain time would reduce it further and indeed Epstein served only months Epstein ultimately not serve even that minimal sentence incarcerated on a full-time basis because the state allowed Epstein into its work release program within the first four months of his sentence As Lourie told OPR 223Everything else that happened to Epstein is exactly what should have happened to him He had to pay a lot of money He had to register as a sex offender but the perfect world Epstein would have served more time in jail Due to the passage of time and the subjects inability to recall many details of the relevant events OPR was unable to develop a clear understanding of how the original two-year sentence requirement was developed or by whom Two possibilities were articulated during OPR 2s subject interviews the two years represented the sentence Epstein would have received had he pled guilty to an unspecified charge originally contemplated by the state or the two years represented the sentence the USAO determined Epstein would be willing to accept thus avoiding the need for a trial As to the former possibility Acosta told OPR that his 223best understanding of the two-year proposal was that it correlated to 223one of the original state charges He elaborated In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Acosta 2s attorney objected to OPR 2s conclusion tliat Acosta knew or should liave known about the litigation regarding the computers and tliat he should liave given greater consideration to pursuing tlie computers before the NPA was signed Acosta 2s attorney asserted tliat Acosta was not involved in tliat level of 223granularity tliat his 221small thoughts edits on Hie NPA were limited and focused on policy and tliat it was appropriate for him to rely on his staff to raise any issues of concern to him For the reasons stated above OPR nonetheless concludes tliat liaving developed a unique resolution to a federal investigation Acosta had a greater obligation to understand and consider what the USAO was giving up and the appropriateness of doing so CA/Aronberg-0647 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM To be clear OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence before reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a resolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues Every case is different and must be judged on its own facts In this case however given the unorthodox nature of the state-based resolution the fact that Acostas decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different track than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff the nature and scope of Epsteins criminal conduct the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from Epsteins residence and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal conduct Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences of pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing from the express terms of the NP A In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge Acosta lost sight of the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be pursued The decision to forgo the governments efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to pursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of all the costs and benefits of the proposed action OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully considered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of Incarceration That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals or That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution The heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency afforded him concerning his sentence After offering a deal that required a non-negotiable 24-month term of incarceration Acosta agreed to resolve it for an 18-month term of incarceration knowing that gain time would reduce it further and indeed Epstein served only months Epstein ultimately did not serve even that minimal sentence incarcerated on a full-time basis because the state allowed Epstein into its work release program within the first four months of his sentence As Lourie told OPR Everything else that happened to Epstein is exactly what should have happened to him He had to pay a lot of money He had to register as a sex offender but in the perfect world Epstein would have served more time in jail Due to the passage of time and the subjects inability to recall many details of the relevant events OPR was unable to develop a clear understanding of how the original two-year sentence requirement was developed or by whom Two possibilities were articulated during OPRs subject interviews the two years represented the sentence Epstein would have received had he pied guilty to an unspecified charge originally contemplated by the state or the two years represented the sentence the USAO determined Epstein would be willing to accept thus avoiding the need for a trial As to the former possibility Acosta told OPR that his best understanding of the two-year proposal was that it correlated to one of the original state charges He elaborated In conunenting on OPRs draft report Acostas allomey objected to OPRs conclusion that Acosta knew or should have known about the litigation regarding the computers and that he should have given greater consideration to pursuing the computers before the NPA was signed Acostas allomey asserted that Acosta was not involved in that level of granularity that his small thoughts edits on U1e NP A were limited and focused on policy and that it was appropriate for him to rely on his staIT to raise any issues of concern to him For the reasons stated above OPR nonetheless concludes that having developed a unique resolution to a federal investigation Acosta had a greater obligation to understand and consider what the USAO was giving up and the appropriateness of doing so CA/Aronberg-0647 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM 2m reconstructing memories of years ago I can speculate that at some point the matter came up and I or someone else said what would the original charges have likely brought And someone said this amount Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this method but he believed that it likely not result from a single specific discussion but rather from conversations over a course of time Acosta could not recall specifically with whom he had these discussions other than that it would have been Lourie Menchel or Sloman Villafana was not asked for her views on a two-year sentence and she had no input into the decision before it was made Villafana told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a state charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence OPR also examined applicable state statutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines but could not confirm that Epstein was in fact facing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD On the other hand during his OPR interview Lourie 223guessed that 223somehow the defense conveyed we 2re going to trial if it 2s more than two years Menchel similarly told OPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived but 223obviously it was a number that the office felt was palatable enough that Epstein would take it Sloman told OPR that he had no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached The contemporaneous documentary record however provides no indication that Epstein 2s team proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested before the USAO made its offer that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration As late as July only days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel 227Epstein 2s counsel submitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute Epstein at all Furthermore after the initial 223term sheet was presented and negotiations for the NPA progressed Epstein 2s team continued to strongly press for less or no time in jail The USAO had other charging and sentencing options available to it The most obvious alternative to the two-year sentence proposal was to offer Epstein a plea to a federal offense that carried a harsher sentence If federally charged Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines to months imprisonment However it is unlikely that he would have agreed to a plea that required a guidelines sentence even one at the lower end of the guidelines Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues had been concerned that Epstein would opt to go to trial if charged and presented with the option of pleading to a guidelines sentence and as previously discussed there were both evidentiary and legal risks attendant upon a trial in this case If federally charged Epstein 2s sentencing exposure could have been managed by offering him a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for a stipulated sentence which requires judicial approval Acosta rejected this idea however apparently because of a perception that the federal district courts in the Southern District of Florida did not view Rule pleas favorably and might refuse to accept such a plea and thus limit the USAO 2s options Another alternative was to offer Epstein a plea to conspiracy a federal charge that carried a maximum five-year sentence Shortly after Villafana circulated the prosecution memorandum to her supervisors Lourie recommended to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and offering a plea to conspiracy make a plea attractive Similarly before learning that Menchel had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epstein 2s counsel Villafana had considered offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy and a substantive charge to be served concurrently with any sentence he might receive separately as a result of the state 2s outstanding CA/Aronberg-0648 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Tm reconstructing memories of years ago I can speculate that at some point the matter came up and I or someone else said what would the original charges have likely brought And someone said this amount Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this method but he believed that it likely did not result from a single specific discussion but rather from conversations over a course ohime Acosta could not recall specifically with whom he had these discussions other than that it would have been Lourie Menchel or Sloman Villafana was not asked for her views on a two-year sentence and she had no input into the decision before it was made Villafana told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a state charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence OPR also examined applicable state statutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines but could not confirm that Epstein was in fact facing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD On the other hand during his OPR interview Lourie guess ed that somehow the defense conveyed were going to trial if its more than two years Menchel similarly told OPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived but obviously it was a number that the office felt was palatable enough that Epstein would take it Sloman told OPR that he had no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached The contemporaneous documentary record however provides no indication that Epsteins team proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested before the USAO made its offer that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration As late as July only days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel-Epsteins counsel submitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute Epstein at all Furthermore after the initial term sheet was presented and negotiations for the NP A progressed Epsteins team continued to strongly press for less or no time in jail The USAO had other charging and sentencing options available to it The most obvious alternative to the two-year sentence proposal was to offer Epstein a plea to a federal offense that carried a harsher sentence If federally charged Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines to months imprisonment However it is unlikely that he would have agreed to a plea that required a guidelines sentence even one at the lower end of the guidelines Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues had been concerned that Epstein would opt to go to trial if charged and presented with the option of pleading to a guidelines sentence and as previously discussed there were both evidentiary and legal risks attendant upon a trial in this case If federally charged Epsteins sentencing exposure could have been managed by offering him a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for a stipulated sentence which requires judicial approval Acosta rejected this idea however apparently because of a perception that the federal district courts in the Southern District of Florida did not view Rule pleas favorably and might refuse to accept such a plea and thus limit the USAOs options Another alternative was to offer Epstein a plea to conspiracy a federal charge that carried a maximum five-year sentence Shortly after Villafana circulated the prosecution memorandum to her supervisors Lourie recommended to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and offering a plea to conspiracy to make a plea attractive Similarly before learning that Menchel had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epsteins counsel Villafana had considered offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy and a substantive charge to be served concurrently with any sentence he might receive separately as a result of the states outstanding CA Aronberg-0648 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM indictment Given Epstein 2s continued insistence that federal charges were not appropriate and defense counsel 2s efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein would spend in jail it is questionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer but the USAO not even extend the offer to determine what his response to it would be Weighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution that ensured a conviction including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a mechanism for the victims to recover damages These advantages added to Acosta 2s concern about intruding on the state 2s authority led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would be sufficient to prevent manifest injustice Menchel told OPR don 2t believe anybody at the time that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of the conduct I think that was not the issue The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial would we risk losing everything During the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea the USAO agreed to accept a plea for an 18-month sentence a reduction of six months from the original 223non-negotiable two year term The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made Villafana attributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz but Acosta attributed it to a decision made during the negotiating process by Villafana and Lourie telling OPR that he understood his attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein OPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term Despite extensive subject interviews and review of thousands of contemporaneous records OPR was unable to determine who initially proposed the two-year term of incarceration or why that term as opposed to other possible and lengthier terms was settled on for the initial offer The term was not tied to statutory or guidelines sentences for potential federal charges or as far as OPR could determine possible state charges Furthermore while the USAO initially informed the defense that the two-year term was 223non-negotiable Acosta failed to enforce that position and rather than a 223floor for negotiations it became a 223ceiling that was further reduced during the negotiations OPR was unable to find any evidence indicating that the term of incarceration was tied either to the federal interest in seeking a just sentence for a serial sexual offender or to other traditional sentencing factors such as deterrence either of Epstein or other offenders of similar crimes Instead as previously noted it appears that Acosta primarily considered only a punishment that was somewhat more than that to which the state had agreed As a result the USAO had little room to maneuver during the negotiations and because Acosta was unwilling to enforce the 223non-negotiable initial offer the government ended up with a term of incarceration that was not much more than what state had initially sought and which was significantly disproportionate to the seriousness of Epstein 2s conduct In sum it is evident that Acosta 2s desire to resolve the federal case against Epstein led him to arrive at a target term of incarceration that met his own goal of serving as a 223backstop to the state but that otherwise was untethered to any articulable reasonable basis In assessing the case only through the lens of providing a 223backstop to the state Acosta failed to consider the need for a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of Epstein 2s conduct and the federal interest in addressing it CA/Aronberg-0649 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I indictment Given Epsteins continued insistence that federal charges wer.e not appropriate and defense counsels efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein wourd spend in jail it is I questionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer but the USAO did not even extend the offer to determine what his response to it would be Weighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution that ensured a conviction including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a mechanism for the victims to recover damages These advantages added to Acostas concern about intruding on the states authority led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would be sufficient to prevent manifest injustice Menchel told OPR I dont believe anybody at the time that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of the conduct I think that was not the issue The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial would we risk losing everything During the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea the USAO agreed to accept a plea for an 18-month sentence a reduction of six months from the original non-negotiable two year term The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made Villafana attributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz but Acosta attributed it to a decision made during the negotiating process by Villafana and Lourie telling OPR that he understood his attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein OPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term Despite extensive subject interviews and review of thousands of contemporaneous records OPR was unable to determine who initially proposed the two-year term of incarceration or why that term as opposed to other possible and lengthier terms was settled on for the initial offer The term was not tied to statutory or guidelines sentences for potential federal charges or as far as OPR could determine possible state charges Furthermore while the USAO initially informed the defense that the two-year term was non-negotiable Acosta failed to enforce that position and rather than a floor for negotiations it became a ceiling that was further reduced during the negotiations OPR was unable to find any evidence indicating that the term of incarceration was tied either to the federal interest in seeking a just sentence for a serial sexual offender or to other traditional sentencing factors such as deterrence either of Epstein or other offenders of similar crimes Instead as previously noted it appears that Acosta primarily considered only a punishment that was somewhat more than that to which the state had agreed As a result the USAO had little room to maneuver during the negotiations and because Acosta was unwilling to enforce the non-negotiable initial offer the government ended up with a term of incarceration that was not much more than what the state had initially sought and which was significantly disproportionate to the seriousness of Epsteins conduct In sum it is evident that Acostas desire to resolve the federal case against Epstein led him to arrive at a target term of incarceration that met his own goal of serving as a backstop to the state but that otherwise was untethered to any articulable reasonable basis In assessing the case only through the lens of providing a backstop to the state Acosta failed to consider the need for a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of Epsteins conduct and the federal interest in addressing it CA/Aronberg-0649 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Acosta 2s Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA After the agreement was reached the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith At various points individual members of the USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics and in some instances consideration was given to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach Indeed on November the USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein 2s participation in work release to be a breach of the agreement but ultimately took no further action Acosta told OPR was personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October had I envisioned that entire collateral attack I think I would have looked at this very differently Once the NPA was signed Acosta could have ignored Epstein 2s requests for further-221.2 review by the Department and if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state guilty plea declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally When questioned about this issue Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the 223right to address Epstein 2s concerns He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice if a defendant asks for Departmental review it would be 223unseemly to object During his OPR interview Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented which he attributed to Acosta 2s prior Department experience Sloman however believed the USAO gave Epstein 223too much process a result of the USAO 2s desire to the right thing and to the defense team 2s ability to keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA Furthermore Epstein 2s defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order to proceed to file federal charges and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach Acosta recalled that he was concerned as was Sloman that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even harder Acosta 2s and Sloman 2s concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable A court would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel 2s appeal of the NPA to the Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date while that appeal was ongoing was sufficient to negate the agreement However some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed For example and significantly it was Acosta who changed the language 223Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October to 223Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October Emphasis added Acosta also agreed not to enforce the NPA 2s October deadline for entry of Epstein 2s plea and he told defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department Following these decisions the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that Epstein was not using his 223best efforts to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to comply as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S Attorney had at least implicitly agreed Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO 2s handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which i I CA/Aronberg-0650 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Acostas Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA After the agreement was reached the collateral attacks and continJed appeals raised the specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith At various points individual members of the USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics and in some instances consideration was given to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach Indeed on November the USAO gave notice that it deemed Epsteins participation in work release to be a breach of the agreement but ultimately took no further action Acosta told OPR I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack I think I would have looked at this very differently Once the NP A was signed Acosta could have ignored Epsteins requests for further review by the Department and if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NP A to enter his state guilty plea declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally When questioned about this issue Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the right to address Epsteins concerns He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice if a defendant asks for Departmental review it would be unseemly to object During his OPR interview Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented which he attributed to Acostas prior Department experience Sloman however believed the USAO gave Epstein too much process a result of the USAOs desire to do the right thing and to the defense teams ability to keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA Furthermore Epsteins defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NP A in order to proceed to file federal charges and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach Acosta recalled that he was concerned as was Sloman that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even harder Acostas and Slomans concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable A court would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsels appeal of the NPA to the Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date while that appeal was ongoing was sufficient to negate the agreement However some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed For example and significantly it was Acosta who changed the language Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October to Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October Emphasis added Acosta also agreed not to enforce the NP As October deadline for entry of Epsteins plea and he told defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department Following these decisions the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that Epstein was not using his best efforts to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to comply as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S Attorney had at least implicitly agreed Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which CA/Aronberg-0650 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I the defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant term of incarceration and made numerous other concessions to the defense I As OPR has set forth in substantial detail in this Report OPR did not find evidence to support allegations that the prosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims Instead the result can more appropriately be tied to Acosta 2s misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state crime and intruding on state authority Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had set even when Villafana and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta himself had learned that the state authorities may not been a reliable partner Many of the problems that developed might been avoided had Acosta engaged in greater consultation with his staff before making key decisions The contemporaneous records revealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants Acosta was involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case Lourie told OPR that it was 223unusual to have a U.S Attorney get involved with this level of detail Menchel told OPR know we would have spoken about this case a lot okay And I 2m sure with Jeff as well and there were conversations a meeting that I had with Marie and Andy as well Lourie similarly told OPR Well he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt talking to me to extent that he did he would have been looking at the Pros Memo and the guidance from CEOS he would have been reading the defense attorney 2s letters maybe talking to the State Attorney I don 2t know just all these different sources of information he was I 2m comfortable that he knew the case you know that he was he was reading everything Apparently he you know read the Pros Memo he read all the stuff At the same time Acosta was significantly removed both in physical distance and in levels in the supervisory chain from the individuals with the most knowledge of the facts of the case Villafana and to a lesser extent Lourie Lourie normally would have signed off on the prosecution memorandum on his own but as he told OPR he recognized that the case was going to go through the front office 223because there was front office involvement from the get go Yet although Acosta became involved at certain points in order to make decisions he not view himself as overseeing the investigation or the details of implementing his decisions OPR observed that as a consequence management of the case suffered from both an absence of ownership of the investigation and failures in communication that affected critical decisions On occasion Villafana included Acosta directly in emails but often information upon which Acosta relied for his decisions and information about the decisions Acosta had made traveled through multiple layers between Acosta and Villafana Villafana did draft a detailed analytical prosecution memorandum but it is not clear that Acosta read it and instead may have relied on conversations primarily with Menchel and later with Sloman after Menchel 2s departure Despite these discussions though it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information such as Oosterbaan 2s strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafana 2s concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA Acosta interpreted the state indictment on only one charge as a sign that the case was weak evidentially but it is not clear that when making his decision to resolve the matter though a state-based plea he knew the extent to I I CA/Aronberg-0651 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I the defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant I term of incarceration and made numerous other concessions to the defense As OPR has set forth in substantial detail in this Report OPR did not find evidence to suppo allegations that the prosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims Instead the result can more appropriately be tied to Acostas misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state crime and intruding on state authority Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had set even when Villafana and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta himself had learned that the state authorities may not have been a reliable partner Many of the problems that developed might have been avoided had Acosta engaged in greater consultation with his staff before making key decisions The contemporaneous records revealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants Acosta was involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case Lourie told OPR that it was unusual to have a U.S Attorney get involved with this level of detail Menchel told OPR I know we would have spoken about this case a lot okay And Im sure with Jeff as well and there were conversations a meeting that I had with Marie and Andy as well Lourie similarly told OPR Well he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt talking to me to the extent that he did he would have been looking at the Pros Memo and the guidance from CEOS he would have been reading the defense attorneys letters maybe talking to the State Attorney I dont know just all these different sources of information he was Im comfortable that he knew the case you know that he was he was reading everything Apparently he you know read the Pros Memo he read all the stuff At the same time Acosta was significantly removed both in physical distance and in levels in the supervisory chain from the individuals with the most knowledge of the facts of the case Villafana and to a lesser extent Lourie Lourie normally would have signed off on the prosecution memorandum on his own but as he told OPR he recognized that the case was going to go through the front office ecause there was front office involvement from the get go Yet although Acosta became involved at certain points in order to make decisions he did not view himself as overseeing the investigation or the details of implementing his decisions OPR observed that as a consequence management of the case suffered from both an absence of ownership of the investigation and failures in communication that affected critical decisions On occasion Villafana included Acosta directly in emails but often information upon which Acosta relied for his decisions and information about the decisions Acosta had made traveled through multiple layers between Acosta and Villafana Villafana did draft a detailed analytical prosecution memorandum but it is not clear that Acosta read it and instead may have relied on conversations primarily with Menchel and later with Sloman after Menchel departure Despite these discussions though it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information such as Oosterbaans strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafaii.as concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA Acosta interpreted the state indictment on only one charge as a sign that the case was weak evidentially but it is not clear that when making his decision to resolve the matter though a state-based plea he knew the extent to CA Aronberg-ooq651 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM which Villafana and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue a broader state indictment I I One example illustrates this communication gap In a September email to Lourie asking him to read the latest version of the proposed 223hybrid federal plea agreement calling for Epstein to plead to both state and federal charges Acosta noted don 2t typically sign plea agreements We should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement I didn 2t even sign the public corruption or Cali cartel agreements so this should not be the first Emphasis added In his email to Villafana Lourie attached Acosta 2s email and instructed Villafana to 223change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay Lefkowitz Emphasis added Villafana raised no objection to signing the agreement Acosta told OPR that he wanted to give the 223trial team a chance to 223speak up and let him know if they did not feel comfortable with the agreement Villafana however told OPR that she did not understand that she was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement rather she believed Acosta wanted her to sign it because he was taking an 223arm 2s length approach and signaling this 223was not his deal The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity to reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate but the line AUSA believed she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself from the decision reflects a serious communication gap As another example at one point Villafana frustrated and concerned about the decisions being made concerning a possible resolution requested a meeting with Acosta in a sternly worded rebuke Menchel rejected the request Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting Villafana from speaking to Acosta Villafana interpreted Menchel 2s email to mean that she could not seek a meeting with Acosta As a consequence Acosta made his decision about a state resolution and the term of incarceration without any direct input from Villafana Acosta told OPR that he was unaware that Villafana had sought a meeting with him and he would have met with her if she had asked him directly OPR did not find any written evidence of a meeting involving both Acosta 227the final decision maker 227and Villafana 227the person most knowledgeable about the facts and the law 227before Acosta made his decision to resolve the case through state charges or to offer the two-year term and Villafana said she not have any input into the decision Although a U.S Attorney is certainly not required to have such direct input and it may be that Menchel presented what he believed to be Villafana 2s views OPR found no evidence that Acosta was aware of Villafana 2s strong views about and objections to the proposed resolution.256 Two logistical problems hindered effective communication First the senior managers involved in the case 227Acosta Sloman and Menchel 227had offices located in Miami while the offices of the individuals most familiar with facts of the case 227Villafana and to a lesser extent Lourie 227were located in West Palm Beach Consequently Villafana 2s discussions with her senior In her Declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that given the challenges of obtaining victims cooperation with a federal prosecution believed and still believe tliat a negotiated resolution of the matter was in the best interests of tire USAO and the victims as a whole The USAO liad also reached tliat same conclusion Several subjects pointed to this statement as indicating tliat Villafana in fact supported the NPA In her OPR interview however Villafana drew a distinction between resolving the investigation through negotiations tliat led to wliat in her view was a reasonable outcome which she would have supported and 223this negotiated resolution tliat is the NPA 227which she did not support CA/Aronberg-0652 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM which Villafana and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue a broader state indictment I I One example illustrates this communication gap In a September email to Lourie asking him to read the latest version of the proposed hybrid federal plea agreement calling for Epstein to plead to both state and federal charges Acosta noted I dont typically sign plea agreements We should only go fonvard if the trial team supports and signs this agreement I didnt even sign the public corruption or Cali cartel agreements so this should not be the first Emphasis added In his email to Villafana Lourie attached Acostas email and instructed Villafana to change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay Lefkowitz Emphasis added Villafana raised no objection to signing the agreement Acosta told OPR that he wanted to give the trial team a chance to speak up and let him know if they did not feel comfortable with the agreement Villafana however told OPR that she did not understand that she was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement rather she believed Acosta wanted her to sign it because he was taking an arms length approach and signaling this was not his deal The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity to reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate but the line AUSA believed she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself from the decision reflects a serious communication gap As another example at one point Villafana frustrated and concerned about the decisions being made concerning a possible resolution requested a meeting with Acosta in a sternly worded rebuke Menchel rejected the request Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting Villafana from speaking to Acosta Villafana interpreted Menchels email to mean that she could not seek a meeting with Acosta As a consequence Acosta made his decision about a state resolution and the term of incarceration without any direct input from Villafana Acosta told OPR that he was unaware that Villafana had sought a meeting with him and he would have met with her if she had asked him directly OPR did not find any written evidence of a meeting involving both Acosta-the final decision maker-and Villafana-the person most knowledgeable about the facts and the law-before Acosta made his decision to resolve the case through state charges or to offer the two-year term and Villafana said she did not have any input into the decision Although a U.S Attorney is certainly not required to have such direct input and it may be that Menchel presented what he believed to be Villafanas views OPR found no evidence that Acosta was aware of Villafanas strong views about and objections to the proposed resolution Two logistical problems hindered effective communication First the senior managers involved in the case-Acosta Sloman and Menchel-had offices located in Miami while the offices of the individuals most familiar with facts of the case-Villafana and to a lesser extent Lourie-were located in West Palm Beach Consequently Villafanas discussions with her senior In her Declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana slated Umt given U1e challenges of obtaining victims cooperation with a federal prosecution I believed and still believe that a negotiated resolution of tile mailer was in the best interests of the USAO and the victims as a whole The USAO also reached that same conclusion Several subjects pointed to Uris statement as indicating Umt Villafana in fact supported U1e NP A In her OPR interview however Villafana drew a distinction between resolving the investigaliotj Urrough negotiations Uiat led to what in her view was a reasonable outcome wlrich she would have supported and tl negotiated resolution tlmt is the NP A-wlrich she did not support CA/Aronberg-0652 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM managers required more effort than in other offices where a line AUSA can more easily just stop by a supervisor 2s office to discuss a case.257 i Second key personnel were absent at varying times Menchel 2s last day in the office was August the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer and presumably in the immediate period before his departure date Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his outstanding work Yet this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter Similarly in the critical month of September the NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the NPA evolved significantly with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key provisions were continuously added or modified while Villafana pressed to meet her late September deadline Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period he was at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington and was traveling between the two locations Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing when many significant changes were made to the agreement and he did not participate in drafting or reviewing the NPA before it was signed Accordingly during the key negotiation period for a significant case involving a unique resolution no one involved had both a thorough understanding of the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made Villafana certainly felt that during the negotiations she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta Acosta however told OPR that when reviewing the NPA would have reviewed this for the policy concerns Did it do the bullet points and my assumption rightly or wrongly would been that Andy and Marie would have looked at this and that this was appropriate The consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can be seen in the NPA itself As demonstrated by the contemporaneous communications the negotiations were at times confusing as the parties considered multiple options and even revisited proposals previously rejected Meanwhile Villafana sought to keep to a deadline that would allow her to charge Epstein when she had planned to if the parties did not reach agreement In the end Acosta accepted several terms with little apparent discussion or consideration of the ramifications The USAO 2s agreement not to prosecute 223any potential co-conspirators is a notable example As previously noted the only written discussion about term that OPR found was Villafana 2s email to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager with copies to her co-counsel and direct supervisor stating that she did not believe the provision 223hurts us and neither Acosta Lourie nor Villafana recalled any further discussion about the provision Although OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta Lourie or Villafana intended the scope of the provision to protect anyone other than Epstein 2s four assistants the plain language of the provision precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct within the limitations set by the overall agreement This broad prosecution declination would likely be unwise in most cases but in this case in particular the USAO not have a sufficient investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not be developed implicating others Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third In his OPR interview Acosta commented that although Menchel 2s office was on the same floor as Acosta 2s he was in a different suite which 223affects interaction I i CA/Aronberg-0653 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I managers required more effort than in other offices where a line AUSA cad more easily just stop I by a supervisors office to discuss a case Second key personnel were absent at varying times Menchels last day in the office was August the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer and presumably in the immediate period before his departure date Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his outstanding work Yet this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter Similarly in the critical month of September the NP A and plea negotiations intensified and the NPA evolved significantly with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key provisions were continuously added or modified while Villafana pressed to meet her late September deadline Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period he was at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington D.C and was traveling between the two locations Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing when many significant changes were made to the agreement and he did not participate in drafting or reviewing the NPA before it was signed Accordingly during the key negotiation period for a significant case involving a unique resolution no one involved had both a thorough understanding of the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made Villafana certainly felt that during the negotiations she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta Acosta however told OPR that when reviewing the NP A I would have reviewed this for the policy concerns Did it do the bullet points and my assumption rightly or wrongly would have been that Andy and Marie would have looked at this and that this was appropriate The consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can be seen in the NPA itself As demonstrated by the contemporaneous communications the negotiations were at times confusing as the parties considered multiple options and even revisited proposals previously rejected Meanwhile Villafana sought to keep to a deadline that would allow her to charge Epstein when she had planned to if the parties did not reach agreement In the end Acosta accepted several terms with little apparent discussion or consideration of the ramifications The USAOs agreement not to prosecute any potential co-conspirators is a notable example As previously noted the only written discussion about the term that OPR found was Villafanas email to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager with copies to her co-counsel and direct supervisor stating that she did not believe the provision hurts us and neither Acosta Lourie nor Villafana recalled any further discussion about the provision Although OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta Lourie or Villafana intended the scope of the provision to protect anyone other than Epsteins four assistants the plain language of the provision precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct within the limitations set by the overall agreement This broad prosecution declination would likely be unwise in most cases but in this case in particular the USAO did not have a sufficient investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not be developed implicating others Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third I In his OPR interview Acosta commented that although Menchels office was on the same floor as Acostas he was in a different suite which affects interaction CA/Aronberg-0653 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM parties.258 The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the US AO to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification for the provision It is highly doubtful that the USAO 2s refusal to agree to that term would have itself caused the negotiations to fail the USAO 2s rejection of the defense proposal concerning immigration consequences did not affect Epstein 2s willingness to sign the agreement The possibility that individuals other than Epstein 2s four female assistants could have criminal culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused more careful consideration of the provision Similarly the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration of the implications of the provision for the victims and it eventually became clear that the defense interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of the investigation Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO 2s ability to disclose or release information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special master Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province of the USAO to decide as it saw fit There is nothing improper about a U.S Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given case indeed U.S Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel and possibly Sloman before making the critical decision to resolve the matter through a state plea although the specifics of those discussions could not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time This case however was different from the norm and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the usual plea agreement Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be handled like any other but Acosta 2s decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case unlike any other and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight Acosta may well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was 223very unusual Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General lolin Roth commented don 2t know how it is that you give immunity to somebody who 2s not identified I just don 2t know how that works Villafana 2s co-counsel told OPR IJt 2s effectively transactional immunity which I didn 2t think we were supposed to do at the Department of Justice I 2ve never heard of any tiling of the sort We go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for example for crimes of violence for anything beyond the specific offense which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and nobody else I mean on rare occasion I 2ve seen cases where say someone was dealing drugs and their wife was involved And they 2ve got kids and it 2s understood hat the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too but you know the husband 2s willing to go and take the weight This is not one of those Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision 223pretty weird Menchel 2s successor as Criminal Chief told OPR dial he had never heard of such a tiling in his years of experience as a prosecutor A senior AUSA with substantial experience prosecuting sex crimes against children cotmnented that it was 223horrendous to provide immunity for participants in such conduct I i i i CA/Aronberg-0654 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM parties The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequdnces and justification for the provision It is highly doubtful that the USAOs refusal to agree to lthat term would have itself caused the negotiations to fail the USAOs rejection of the defense proposal concerning immigration consequences did not affect Epsteins willingness to sign the agreement The possibility that individuals other than Epsteins four female assistants could have criminal culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused more careful consideration of the provision Similarly the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration of the implications of the provision for the victims and it eventually became clear that the defense interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of the investigation Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAOs ability to disclose or release information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special master Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province of the USAO to decide as it saw fit There is nothing improper about a U.S Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given case indeed U.S Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel and possibly Sloman before making the critical decision to resolve the matter through a state plea although the specifics of those discussions could not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time This case however was different from the norm and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the usual plea agreement Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be handled_ like any other but Acostas decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case unlike any other and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight Acosta may well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was very unusual Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth commented I dont know how it is that you give inununity to somebody whos not identified I just dont know how that works Villafafias co-counsel told OPR ljts effectively transactional immunity which I didnt think we were supposed to do at the Department of Justice Ive never heard of anything of the sort We go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for example for crimes of violence for anything beyond the specific offense which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and nobody else I mean on rare occasion Ive seen cases where say someone was dealing drugs and U1eir wife was involved And U1eyve got kids and its understood that the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too but you know the husbands willing lo go and take U1e weight This is not one of Deputy Attorney General Filip called U1e provision pretty weird Menchel successor as Criminal Chief told OPR that he had never heard of such a tiring in Iris years of experience as a prosecutor A se1rior AUSA with substantial experience prosecuting sex crimes against clrildren commented l11al it was horrendous lo provide itmnunity for participants itl such conduct I CA Aronberg-0654 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM from Villafana and others but given the highly unusual procedure being considered his decision should have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and consequences of pushing the matter into the state court system with whichneither Villafana nor the other subjects had experience along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and possible means of overcoming those issues OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a meeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the state-based resolution before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration or before the NPA with its unusual terms was signed As Acosta later recognized and told OPR 223And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is did the focus on let 2s just get this done and get a jail term mean that we didn 2t take a step back and say let 2s evaluate how this train is moving Many features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration including core provisions like the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration with the result that Epstein was able to manipulate the process to his benefit Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about some of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making There does not seem to be a point however at which those differing opinions were considered when forming a strategy rather Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him followed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three core elements As the U.S Attorney Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner but many of the problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful approach As Acosta belatedly recognized I was advising a fellow U.S Attorney today would say think it through No one of the individual problems discussed above necessarily demonstrates poor judgment by itself However in combination the evidence shows that the state-based resolution was ill conceived from the start and that the NPA resulted from a flawed decision-making process From the time the USAO opened its investigation Acosta recognized the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein yet after that investigation had run for more than a year he set the investigation on a path not originally contemplated Having done so he had responsibility for ensuring that he received and considered all of the necessary information before putting an end to a federal investigation into serious criminal conduct Acosta 2s failure to adequately consider the full ramifications of the NPA contributed to a process and ultimately a result that left not only the line AUSA and the FBI case agents dissatisfied but also caused victims and the public to question the motives of the prosecutors and whether any reasonable measure of justice was achieved Accordingly OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose a course of action that was in marked contrast to the action that the Department would reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Acosta 2s attorney acknowledged that 223the matter would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention CA/Aronberg-0655 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I I from Villafafta and others but given the highly unusual procedure being co sidered his decision should have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and consequences of pushing the matter into the state court system with which.I neither Villafana nor the other subjects had experience along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and possible means of overcoming those issues OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a meeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the state-based resolution before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration or before the NP A with its unusual terms was signed As Acosta later recognized and told OPR And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is did the focus on lets just get this done and get a jail term mean that we didnt take a step back and say lets evaluate how this train is moving Many features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration including core provisions like the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration with the result that Epstein was able to manipulate the process to his benefit Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about some of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making There does not seem to be a point however at which those differing opinions were considered when forming a strategy rather Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him followed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three core elements As the U.S Attorney Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner but many of the problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful approach As Acosta belatedly recognized If I was advising a fellow U.S Attorney today I would say think it through No one of the individual problems discussed above necessarily demonstrates poor judgment by itself However in combination the evidence shows that the state-based resolution was ill conceived from the start and that the NP A resulted from a flawed decision-making process From the time the USAO opened its investigation Acosta recognized the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein yet after that investigation had run for more than a year he set the investigation on a path not originally contemplated Having done so he had responsibility for ensuring that he received and considered all of the necessary information before putting an end to a federal investigation into serious criminal conduct Acostas failure to adequately consider the full ramifications of the NP A contributed to a process and ultimately a result that left not only the line AUSA and the FBI case agents dissatisfied but also caused victims and the public to question the motives of the prosecutors and whether any reasonable measure of justice was achieved Accordingly OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose a course of action that was in marked contrast to the action that the Department would reasonably expect an attorney exercising good judgment to take In commenting on OPRs draft report Acostas attorney acknowledged that the matter would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attentio11 CA/Aronberg-0655 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CA/Aronberg-0656 Page Intentionally Left Blank FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Page Intentionally Left Blank CA/Aronberg-0656 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER THREE ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT 2S INTERACTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS PART ONE FACTUAL BACKGROUND I OVERVIEW Chapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal government 2s interactions and communications with victims in the Epstein case and should be read in conjunction with the factual background set forth in Chapter Two Part One This chapter sets forth the pertinent legal authorities and Department policies and practices regarding victim notification and consultation as well as OPR 2s analysis and conclusions OPR discusses key events relating to the USAO 2s and the FBI 2s interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA beginning with the FBI 2s initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an investigation A timeline of key events is provided on the following page THE CVRA U.S.C A History In December the President 2s Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report outlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime victims The Task Force concluded that victims have been 223overlooked their pleas for justice have gone unheeded and their wounds 227personal emotional and financial 227have gone unattended Thereafter the government enacted various laws addressing victims roles in the criminal justice system the Victim and Witness Protection Act of the Victims ofCrime Act of the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of VRRA the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of the Victim Rights Clarification Act of and the Justice for All Act of The CVRA enacted on October as part of the Justice for All Act was designed to protect crime victims and to make them 223full participants in the criminal justice system The CVRA resulted from a multi-year bipartisan effort to approve a proposal for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing victims rights some of which had previously been codified as a victims President 2s Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii Dec See Pub No Victim and Witness Protection Act Pub No Victims of Crime Act Pub No Victims Rights and Restitution Act Pub No Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act Pub No Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Pub No Victim Rights Clarification Act and Pub No Justice for All Act Kenna U.S Dist Court F.3d 9th Cir United States Moussaoui F.3d 4th Cir and Justice for All Act CA/Aronberg-0657 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER THREE ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENTS INTERACTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS PART ONE FACTUAL BACKGROUND I OVERVIEW Chapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal governments interactions and communications with victims in the Epstein case and should be read in conjunction with the factual background set forth in Chapter Two Part One This chapter sets forth the pertinent legal authorities and Department policies and practices regarding victim notification and consultation as well as OPRs analysis and conclusions OPR discusses key events relating to the USAOs and the FBls interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA beginning with the FBIs initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an investigation A timeline of key events is provided on the following page II THE CVRA U.S.C A History In December the Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report outlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime victims The Task Force concluded that victims have been overlooked their pleas for justice have gone unheeded and their wounds-personal emotional and financial-have gone unattended Thereafter the government enacted various laws addressing victims roles in the criminal justice system the Victim and Witness Protection Act of the Victims of Crime Act of the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of VRRA the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of the Victim Rights Clarification Act of and the Justice for All Act of The CVRA enacted on October as part of the Justice for All Act was designed to protect crime victims and to make them full participants in the criminal justice system The CVRA resulted from a multi-year bipartisan effort to approve a proposal for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing victims rights some of which had previously been codified as a victims Presidents Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii Dec See Pub No Victim and Witness Protection Act Pub No Victims of Crime Act Pub No Victims Rights and Restitution Act Pub No Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act Pub No Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Pub No Victim Rights Clarification Act and Pub No Justice for All Act Kenna U.S Dist Court F.3d 9th Cir United States Moussaoui F.3d 4th Cir and Justice for All Act CA/Aronberg-0657 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM AugiOt-FBI begins interviewing Victims Aug Villafana c-imiI to supervisois indicating that she ieiit victim notification letters to all ofilhe girls Aug FBr begins scndmgVNS letters lovtctims Vug Sep Dec CAAronberg-0658 Timeline of KeyEvents for Crime Victims 2Rights Act Analysis Ike I1 i JI Cr i I M.t 1j CVRA Dim Ct ik ie.i bin1 I Mphied il IliMi I i Jhirg Au Dai LI AotliZCdv 11th FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM co LO I Dx?0?E A a a 0??DDE Gg?D?A?A a DY7 a XB DXB?W a 0B A a HDDn"4?q Le a I?F F0E Dtf Q/?ˣ x?G??P IK dx A3?ܨA A3?T gs?Pq AH CJv BϤh??Zh?S ی?S C6?R i?DE P??!HDDk _A?F a dx?G??x фc.?e 萋??vwE I 6w c.?e b?e w;ˢ?N N?APT F2 l?DF?GŸb HE4 LTDE v?ݐT qz hDR58w a T0 A gs tG gs E?A3 a?x a2 a ЌQتg hE?D-4 DE DHB(!qq KS?F?DEȞ B!?DZj??DE?q 6_ e?a O?E a PE a a F2 фa APw SZ(??m gs?PW A?ϡ 3c A A N?CB?б 2?Ab DD 1v??Dv?G N?ߍ F?X DE s?wf L?E gta x??鑎?f ta ta 6a A l2 ф_ L?S?0LQt a a h?R I??t I _L L?T A ßG A DF G?e CCX?b Bill of Rights in the VRRA.263 Following multiple Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment the Senators determined that such an amendment was unlikely to be approved and instead they presented the CVRA as a compromise measure Enumerated Rights The CVRA defines the term 223crime victim as person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia Initially and at the time relevant to the federal Epstein investigation the CVRA afforded crime victims the following eight rights The right to be reasonably protected from the accused The right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding unless the court after receiving clear and convincing evidence determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release plea sentencing or any parole proceeding The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case See Cong Rec at The VRRA identified victims rights to be treated with fairness and with respect for tire victim 2s dignity and privacy be reasonably protected from the accused offender be notified of court proceedings be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial confer with an attorney for the Government in the case restitution and information about the conviction sentencing imprisonment and release of the offender U.S.C The relevant text of the VRRA is set forth in Chapter Three Part Two Section IB of this Report Cong Rec at Although nine congressional hearings were held between and concerning amending the Constitution to address victims rights neither chamber of Congress voted on legislation proposing an amendment United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees Crime Victims Rights Act Increasing Awareness Modifying the Complaint Process and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring Will Improve Implementation of the Act at Dec GAO CVRA A wareness Report I The relevant text of the CVRA is set forth in Chapter Three Part Two Section I A of this Report i CA/Aronberg-0659 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i Bill of Rights in the VRRA Following multiple Senate Judiciary Conimittee subcommittee hearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment the Senators determined that such an amendment was unlikely to be approved and instead they presented the CVRA as a compromise measure Enumerated Rights The CVRA defines the term crime victim as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia Initially and at the time relevant to the federal Epstein investigation the CVRA afforded crime victims the following eight rights The right to be reasonably protected from the accused The right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding unless the court after receiving clear and convincing evidence determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release plea sentencing or any parole proceeding The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case See Cong Rec at The YRRA identified victi1s rights to be treated vith fairness and with respect for the victims dignity and privacy be reasonably protected from the accused offender be notified of court proceedings be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense unless the court detennines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial confer with an attorney for the Govenunent in the case restitution and infonnation about the conviction sentencing imprisonment and release of the offender U.S.C The relevant text of the VRRA is set forth in Chapter Three Part Two Section of this Report Cong Rec al Although nine congressional hearings were held between and concerning amending the Constitution lo address victims rights neither chamber of Congress voted on legislation proposing an amendment United States Govenunent Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Commiltees Crime Victims Rights Act Increasing Awareness A1odify1ng the Complaint Process and Enhancing Compliance vfonitoring TVi/1 Improve Implementation of the Act at Dec GAO Cf R4 Awareness Report I The relevant of the CVRA is set forth in Chapter Three Part Two Section I.A of this Report CA Aronberg-00Q659 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim 2s dignity and privacy Although many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part of the VRRA the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or by administrative complaint to the Department and obligated the court to ensure that such rights were afforded The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA U.S.C but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals U.S.C Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide victim services which attach upon the detection of a crime while the CVRA contains court enforceable rights that attach upon the filing of a charging instrument In Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights:266 The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section of the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of U.S.C and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice HL THE DEPARTMENT 2S The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.1 I The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victims dignity and privacy Although many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part of the VRRA the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or by administrative complaint to the Department and obligated the court to ensure that such rights were afforded The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA U.S.C but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals U.S.C Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide victim services which attach upon the detection of a crime while the CVRA contains court enforceable rights that attach upon the filing of a charging instrument In Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section of the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of U.S.C and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice THE DEPARTMENTS I OLC concluded that because the CVRA defines 223crime victim as a 221person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense the definition of victim is thus tethered to the identification of a 221Federal offense an event that occurs with the filing of a complaint OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies the 221rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system and a complaint 223commences the 221judicial process and places an offense within the 221judicial system the legislature must have intended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint OLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation For example the first right grants a victim protection from 223the accused not a suspect Additionally the second third and fourth rights refer to 223victim notification and access to public proceedings involving release plea sentencing or parole 227none of which commence prior to the filing of a complaint Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance In May the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance Guidelines to include the CVRA.269 The Guidelines specifically cited the CVRA requirement that agencies 223engaged in the detection investigation or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of and accorded their CVRA rights which in encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights The Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Department 2s CVRA duties and divided criminal cases into an 223investigation stage a 223prosecution stage and a 223corrections stage The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights varied depending on the stage of the proceedings During the 223investigation stage of cases in which the FBI was the investigating agency the Special Agent in Charge was responsible for identifying the victims the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime and notifying them of their rights under the CVRA and services available under the VRRA and other federal statutes During the investigative stage the Department mandates compliance with the Victims Rights and Restitution Act U.S.C which requires federal officials to among other things identify victims protect victims arrange for victims to receive reasonable protection from suspected offenders and provide The Availability of Crime Victims Rights Under the Crime Victims Rights Act of Dec OLC Availability of Crime Victims Rights and available at https://w.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc 223Tliat informal guidance did not foreclose the possibility that other definitions would also be reasonable OLC Availability ofCrime Victims Rights at The Guidelines are set forth in relevant part in Chapter Three Part Two Section II of this Report The Department promulgated tire guidelines in response to a congressional directive in a predecessor statute to the CVRA wliich instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement such guidelines Victim and Witness Protection Act Pub No Stat The Guidelines were superseded in October as explained below i CA/Aronberg-0661 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i I I I I OLC concluded that because the CVRA defines crime victim as person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense the definition of victim is thus tethered to the identification of a Federal offense an event that occurs with the filing of a complaint OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies the rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system and a complaint commences the judicial process and places an offense within the judicial system the legislature must have intended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint OLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation For example the first right grants a victim protection from the accused not a suspect Additionally the second third and fourth rights refer to victim notification and access to public proceedings involving release plea sentencing or parole-none of which commence prior to the filing of a complaint Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance In May the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance Guidelines to include the CVRA The Guidelines specifically cited the CVRA requirement that agencies engaged in the detection investigation or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of and accorded their CVRA rights which in encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights The Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Departments CVRA duties and divided criminal cases into an investigation stage a prosecution stage and a corrections stage The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights varied depending on the stage of the proceedings During the investigation stage of cases in which the FBI was the investigating agency the Special Agent in Charge was responsible for identifying the victims at the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime and notifying them of their rights under the CVRA and services available under the VRRA and other federal statutes During the investigative stage the Department mandates compliance with the Victims Rights and Restitution Act U.S.C which requires federal officials to among other things identify victims protect victims arrange for victims to eceive reasonable protection from suspected offenders and provide The Avai/abi/i of Crime Victims Rights Under the Crime Victims Rights Act of Dec OLC Availability of Crime Victims Rights IO and available at https://w.justice.gov/sites/defaull/files/olc That infonnal guidance did not foreclose the possibility that other definitions would also be reasonable OLC Avai/abi!i of Crime Victims Rights at The Guidelines are set forth in relevant part in Chapter Three Part Two Section II of this Report The Department promulgated t11e guidelines in response to a congressional directive in a predec ssor statute to the CVRA which instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement such guidelines Victim ahd Witness Protection Act Pub No Stat The Guidelines were superseded in October as explained CA/Aronberg-0661 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM information about available services for victims Therefore even though the Department may not afford CVRA rights to victims if charges have not been filed in their cases the Departmerit may provide certain services to victims that may serve the same function as some CVRA rights.270 The Guidelines stated that the 223prosecution stage of the case began when 223charges are filed and continued through postsentencing legal proceedings The Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending was responsible for making 223best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of their rights under the CVRA During the prosecution stage the Guidelines required the U.S Attorney or a designee to notify crime victims of case events such as the filing of charges the release of an offender the schedule of court proceedings the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or rendering of a verdict and any sentence imposed The Guidelines required the responsible official to 223provide the victim with reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding that involves the crime against the victim The Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to available to consult with victims about their major case decisions such as dismissals release of the accused plea negotiations and pretrial diversion In particular the Guidelines required the responsible official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations Nevertheless the Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to 223consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering the victim 2s views in light of various factors such as 223whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions and 223whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the.effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant 2s right to a fair trial Lastly the Guidelines stated that strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime The 223corrections stage involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration following a conviction Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant the U.S Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage IV USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION A USAO Training As U.S Attorney Acosta disseminated the May updated Guidelines to USAO personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February stating that he expected each recipient read and become familiar with the Guidelines Acosta noted in the memorandum that the USAO had recently held an 223all office training addressing the Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training were required to view a videotaped version of the training 223immediately Acosta further nofed that the USAO 2s I GAO Cr7i4 Awareness Report at I CA/Aronberg-0662 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM information about available services for victims Therefor even though the Department may not afford CVRA rights to victims if charges have not been filed in their cases the Department may provide certain services to victims that may serve the same Nnction as some CVRA rights The Guidelines stated that the prosecution stage of the case began when charges are filed and continued through postsentencing legal proceedings The U.S Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending was responsible for making best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of their rights under the CVRA During the prosecution stage the Guidelines required the U.S Attorney or a designee to notify crime victims of case events such as the filing of charges the release of an offender the schedule of court proceedings the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or rendering of a verdict and any sentence imposed The Guidelines required the responsible official to provide the victim with reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding that involves the crime against the victim The Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to be available to consult with victims about their major case decisions such as dismissals release of the accused plea negotiations and pretrial diversion In particular the Guidelines required the responsible official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations Nevertheless the Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering the victims views in light of various factors such as whether the proposed plea involves confidential infonnation or conditions and hether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the_ effect that relaying any information may have on the defendants right to a fair trial Lastly the Guidelines stated that a strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime The corrections stage involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration following a conviction Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant the U.S Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage IV USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION A USAO Training As U.S Attorney Acosta disseminated the May updated Guidelines to USAO personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February stating that he expected each recipient to read and become familiar with the Guidelines Acosta noted in the memorandum that the USAO had recently held an all office training addressing the Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training wer required to view a videotaped version of the training immediately Acosta further noted that the USAOs I I GAO CVi?A Awareness Report at CA/Aronberg-0662 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM victim/witness staff were 223ready to assist you with the details of victim notification and other areas for which United States Attorney 2s Offices are now explicitly responsible under the act The US AO 2s Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the USAO provided annual mandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees The Automated Victim Notification System Both the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim Notification System VNS an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys The Guidelines mandated that 223victim contact information and notice to victims of events shall absent exceptional circumstances such as cases involving juvenile or foreign victims be conducted and maintained using VNS The VNS is separate from agency case management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO Both the FBI and the USAO use the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the prosecution of a criminal case Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited individual matter-specific content the letters contain specific language concerning the purpose of the contact that cannot be removed such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a sentencing hearing In the usual course of a criminal case the FBI collects victim contact information during the investigation stage which it stores in its case management system The FBI 2s Victim Specialist exports the victim information data from the FBI 2s case management system into the VNS database Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigation 2s VNS case number At the time of the Epstein investigation the FBI 2s Victim Specialist could use the VNS to generate seven different form notification letters initial notification case is under investigation arrest of the defendant declination of prosecution other advice of victim rights and investigation closed After a charging document has been filed and the 223prosecution stage begins the USAO 2s Victim Witness Specialist assumes responsibility for victim notification.272 The USAO imports data from its case management system into the VNS and links to the previously loaded FBI VNS data The USAO 2s Victim Witness Specialist uses the VNS to generate form letters providing notice of case events such as charges filed an arraignment a proposed plea agreement change of plea hearings sentencing hearings and the result of sentencing hearings U.S Dept of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report The Department of Justice 2s Victim Notification System at Jan available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/EOUSA/a0804 final.pdf The audit identified concerns with the VNS templates including that 223VNS users cannot alter the format to ensure that it fits with the specific case for which it is being sent and many users had noted Uiat 223information in notifications became confusing and sometimes contradictory1 when various types of notifications were combined in the same letter The FBI and the USAO have different titles for the individual who maintains victim contact the FBI title is 223Victim Specialist and the USAO title is 223Victim Witness Specialist I I CA/Aronberg-0663 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM victim/witness staff were ready to assist you with the details of victim notification and other areas for which United States Attorneys Offices are now explicitly respohsible under the act I The USAOs Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the US.AO provided annual mandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees The Automated Victim Notification System Both the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim Notification System VNS an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys The Guidelines mandated that victim contact information and notice to victims of events shall absent exceptional circumstances such as cases involving juvenile or foreign victims be conducted and maintained using VNS The VNS is separate from agency case management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO Both the FBI and the USAO use the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the prosecution of a criminal case Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited individual matter-specific content the letters contain specific language conc.erning the purpose of the contact that cannot be removed such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a sentencing hearing In the usual course of a criminal case the FBI collects victim contact information during the investigation stage which it stores in its case management system The FBI Victim Specialist exports the victim information data from the FBls case management system into the VNS database Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigations VNS case number At the time of the Epstein investigation the FBIs Victim Specialist could use the VNS to generate seven different form notification letters initial notification case is under investigation arrest of the defendant declination of prosecution other advice of victim rights and investigation closed After a charging document has been filed and the prosecution stage begins the USAO Victim Witness Specialist assumes responsibility for victim notification The USAO imports data from its case management system into the VNS and links to the previously loaded FBI VNS data The USAOs Victim Witness Specialist uses the VNS to generate form letters providing notice of case events such as charges filed an arraignment a proposed plea agreement change of plea hearings sentencing hearings and the result of sentencing hearings U.S Dept of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report The Departmenl of Justices Victim Notification System at Jan available at https://oig.justice.g v/reports/EOUSA/a0804 final.pelf The audit identified concerns with the VNS templates including that VNS users cannot alter the fonnat to ensure tliat it fits with the specific case for which it is being sent and many users had noted that information in notifications became confusing and sometimes contradictory when various types of notifications were combined in the same letter The FBI and the USAO have different titles for the individual who 1naintains victim contact the FBI title is Victim Specialist and the USAO title is Victim Witness Specialist I CA/Aronberg-0663 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets The Guidelines recommended that 223victims be given a printed!brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and available services and contact information for the victim witness coordinator or specialist At the time of the Epstein investigation FBI agents nationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled 223Help for Victims of Crime and 223The Department of Justice Victim Notification System The 223Help for Victims of Crime pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights The pamphlet stated 223Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime and it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney 2s Office to ensure you are afforded those rights The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided victims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview The pamphlet entitled 223The Department of Justice Victim Notification System provided an overview of the VNS and instructions on how to access the system THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets The Guidelines recommended that victims be given a printedibrochure or card that briefly describes their rights and available services and contact information for the victim witness coordinator or specialist At the time of the Epstein investigation FBI agents nationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled Help for Victims of Crime and The Department of Justice Victim Notification System The Help for Victims of Crime pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights The pamphlet stated Most cf these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime and it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorneys Office to ensure you are afforded those rights The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided victims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview The pamphlet entitled The Department of Justice Victim Notification System provided an overview of the VNS and instructions on how to access the system THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI I U.S Department ofJuJke I Fcdml Butmu oI Investigation FBI West Faint Beach Suite 3auUi Raglct.Drivc FL Phone Fam August 3Ki20G Ras Case Ktimberi Yowctuttne tefettedto tlte FBI tVicdm Assistersie Prigtsms being a possible viotiin of a fcdual 253crime AVeapprecialayotmassistance andeoopefatioa wlulfr we 2aiB investigating this cs,would like to TrnakeypU aware of teYictim rvices tet tnayte available to you and tn answer any questions you.may haws regwrfiog te wiininirf justice pfocats throughout the itivestiezitiQn Our jiroEraw ispwtbftbs FBIs effort to cdsui elite victims uc treated with respect and.aitpfovicd Information about their rights under fcdsrai.law.i fmese rights include notifieatinn of Ilie status of tiiccase Tba nclosed brochures provide jnfonjalion abairt the FBFiVictim Assistance Prbgnsm rssrjurets end mslwrfluhs fori 273aessitfi the Victim jtfbtificalian gysient VNS vVNSiisTiesfgnedtD provide you with infoTmaUonreganJing tlieitBtus ofyaur.wse Tills else ctnettriy urnlar invesiignuan Th is can bee lengthy process end wetequsatyutu continued5 patience while wa cofulutl a irou Investigation As crime victim you have the following rights tinder Unitet Slales.Coile The right in bi nmsuiinbly prutnieti Bom tieacuused Tho ri ht Ui reasonable,uccuraie,"ami.tirrHly naliuaofany public court piuceednig any parftepraceed trig tjwoMng die trdrtieorW airy reteare or escape pf.tiiEO 253;used Tae right not to be excluded from any such publiceourt proceeding nates the court literreceiving tear and convincing evidence determiMS that testimony by the victim would be Btiterwlly.-altered,if.the vietan hoird Otte lerttmvnv el thstproceedutg Theright to be teasonebiy hearj til any public proceeding in Ihedistrict court involving release plea senteticinv tiny furoic proceeding SJTterMiOuabie right to confsr whit tbs attorney lnthecaso The riglti to till atid tbneiy nsntuboa as.pwvided hi litw Tbs fright to prowsedingWreB from rinransnble delay The rigfitto be Ireiteri wfrh foirngssonrl wirii respect thr ithe-victimls dlgiuty and privacy WpwIU molwbur lteS BfforB toersuro you are accorded rfi6 ttelts.de ribod Most of tan rights pertain to events-oontning afta ths attest-.a indictment!-.of an indivtdistl for teatime tun will becomete 225rtsponsihlRty of the pmsecatlny United States Attorneys Office to ensure you wentaoried those rights Von may alro ck the advice of a private attorney vyjlti respect to tliesertebts TL 2c 221yiclimNDtiricouou:Sysicm yNS isd provtdeyou with direct infonuatlun regarding Ilie case as it proceeds through the crimteljiisticcsysiem Youmttyobtwsurgnditfon th atenre WW otiiy SDOJdSO tijmigVNS al Center at BB mm ln uidilion you niay:ure thc.CaU Center or iBtemet to update jMiir couiact lufaniiaijoa uiidor.cliangc your dcdPiCTi iboutpartifsipayan in the tuificatioii program If you update your hifoimatioa to liiciude a current etnai add res VWS will setid uifonnaubstn that address:.You.will need te following:Violin identiflsailonNumber VlFi BHBinii PyMurtal IdeiulficaMni Number FIN 221BHinyiltne you cantectihejCsIlCatter and the Ursi on Inc Internet In addition lie Itet time you access iIk VNS tatwust site you Will be prompted to cutgryour last fbnEfaisKsmime as Eirrentiycottainctl 2kt VNS.tTlienotooyun should taiurisOHMHMIi CA/Aronberg-0665 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM iiTI!ii 1i W;il i i it tin fi iY9U ll,".ote otthe ICe flint moy tiY/l:le i yo questipns,y YJ ay gi io i;lju;u ia tJlieo of eR rpr inoftbtfa Jfo?t e11sureihc y,,Jth i:n1d,ru:c oon ilo1ub drril!Jiny ffil trlght,s tiirus of-tiiC fon:noiton abo1i1Uie ljylc_tint11 raiir t,.ii rri Ll Jtvrl O:Nbff tfi lijys1eil1 lV SJ VI li fgi:d to _pr ivldiryouwith In miaUoriiegari!ing i.he 1lnis afyour.ct?Se ni1s:ca 267ts;ci:n 1ilY,imikrJif emlg11flim Tb ti CDn i ii!:tl1y ptoQ imam I i:qucil,,f uw 267:c6fillnuetl P!lleii m11te:;wf ifu gJJ 1!gf,t1g,i:i ill ti nfue Vi liv,o.llui riiliovim f.;,;ijis uitooJE!un s1ilteH?tiil Thefi l,t ill fu L:11:W1tinnbly,prtit i ieil Liu ni_l!l!i aw;cd Theri I fo rc""..sm1able 267ucctirati:;iliitl,iilf lj.naui;c ofw:y1publi1 qllf 245ltJ ifi i,e Irii.vrtMn Qi qf i i tllt:liilloo from:llilYSUt;lt publiiH;ourt.proe ed_ini lmltSS lle urt,,11fler;receivipg cl_eJtr rutll coijviricfog,e av!BctEi itr.it-s fh,ntt Sp:rii:J ii,,;/ihcv1 i ld mti ll n1 ifJne 9.lhl qL:l JlY.!lt!Ii11 J1 h1Ji tja l!a_b!5.li tif,afl!i ee l1 1pJl;e.dl:;tiif urt i1JVo!vll tj cas9 Jl.lli!lli.i nwficllig it lij p;trol 267prooe!!liifs Tl pal H.gbl u,::-confei.W!th tli ll!t,6J?1efY_ 1b 2f!J lfJ:J,II:Jil lt tlt_iJ1 t1lc Js pr1y1 f!fia itJ ll pro ffoffl lf;zj f!Plile i Jlie rightt.o Jf Yith.fhim d;wir!i Til..t el fnt 1We vi dliai i cc_ 267ill mii ouib llc hbcd.lif1m 267otilmso,nghlli pertlijn to evcnii iiuniij.llftei tir noictment rif ru:,i 267maMdl ili 225crtme ld it vliiabecoillc qnmlnlt Rnlil fitlni,.T nit Jnt,ej1 1furneyi Cfl!l yo n:!,t!ii,tbfu.li:ij ts ec th li prvat a,ltoi;n,cr wft I tt J:l ts i Notiflil 200d611:systemNNsj isfd i11ueJ 0-pro direct trif6n1:iit1,i;:1 re ingU1e i!,S,it se di Jl.t eerii:ni.na qc s_ tii inllj rrerit ihf6rnir;tion abifot ii1r miltti Ulelateruet atWlNotlf1mmo:1.GOVotm,tht1xrS:Cl!llpcn:-er,l i I 1Uldfli t:may;wc.U esGnU nb ll!temet to1JpdatC OIJJCO tlliftmrulti6n 267-;cltil!lc,Vll lrde lei:1a,i,l ui:pat11cfpatiOt1 ill Uie n1 ticaii ii piQgmrul ijih your li1foit11iitlo11 fo:I eil curteill einliil ttdrcss wul sei1t1 ilb na J,r11SS:,y vi,!tn t1ie1ou 267o,Hcterifkailor/Niimbir YJf:l h"isr:ina1 t,il 11lp forf Nu:ajb,ei xt!Qiejp 1.i,eJ?it arid,;i ft 1l t:it1u _:iq s:il hirrn r1 iJiri _tilUuif tile l!t ttjne lhe lntctllt!I 6lta OU,Wlli lx OO:pte1f ui GJtci:your WI jiimii ot ibi ti11D1eflft ntiy 1:oil llirt,cll rl1u l,ruai:.yu tiu i CA/Aronberg-0665 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Ifyou Innt sAllilciul quadlws InvolYcThB Matter,please contact thcolfia listed phmv When you ajj plcaje provide the file nunitcr loaned tho top of this letter 225Flew lememteek you partreiptition tn tbs nofficmion pari of program h.YBl itayJhionlet to casfitiueio receive MtlBaBlicrM it it your rwp 2tosIHIftyjn keep yew cobIbc hlonuafiai cunesi Since VNS data logs correspondence maintained in the FBI 2s case management system and FBI interview reports for the Epstein investigation reflect that during the Epstein investigation the FBI generally issued its victim notification letters after the victim had been interviewed by FBI case agents but its practice was not uniform.275 August The USAO 2s Letters to Victims During the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing and sending FBI victim notification letters Villafana was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of meeting with each victim receiving the letter Villafana told OPR that she was 223generally aware thatthe FBI sends letters but believed the FBI 2s 223process didn 2t have anything to do with my process Villafana told OPR the 223FBI had their own victim notification system and their own guidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided Moreover Villafana 223didn 2t know when FBI letters went out or 223what they said Nevertheless Vil afana told OPR that she did riot intend for the etters she drafted to interfere with the FBI 2s notification responsibilities In August Villafana drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified by the FBI based on the PBPD investigative file Villafana told OPR that she 223made the decision to make contact with victims early and she composed the introductory letter and determined to whom they would be sent Although these letters contained CVRA rights information Villafana mainly intended to use them as a vehicle to 223introduce herself arid let the victims know the federal investigation 223would be a different process from the State Attorney 2s Office investigation in which 223the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated Villafana told OPR that in a case in which she 223needed to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate OPR found rid uniformity in the time lapse between tltc PDFs interview of a victim and the issuance of ail FBI letter to that particular victim as the span of time between the two events varied from a few days to months Furthermore hot every victim interviewed by the FBI received ah FBI letter subsequent to her interview and some FBI letters were sent to victims who had not been interviewed by the case agents Finally OPRs review of FBI VNS data revealed some letters that appeared to have been generated in the VNS and not included in the FB1 case file OPR could hot confirm whether such letters were mailed or delivered Villafana who did not have supervisory authority over the FBI 2s Victim Specialist told OPR that she did not review the FBI notification letters and did not sec them until she gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation which was iniliated.after Epstein,pled guilty on June CA/Aronberg-06 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM lf rtnfJ1 td,llik!Jplq11eat1611ti Whltlj 1f!Yolvl1hii iuct fu oaj lfir,i i jil;irumt:cr loww itmtoi1ot:1fi.W ttffe,.j ut if ll fi iui1q re?!J rlt siu-,6Y VNS data logs,.correspondence:maintained:inthe FBI case 267managen1ent system and FBI interview reports for the Epstein investigatiori reflect that during the Epstein investigation the FBI generally issued its victim notification letters after the victim had beeh interviewed by FBI case agents bu its practice was not uniform August Ihe USA Os Leffers to Victims During the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing an4 sending FBI victim notification letters Villafana was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of meeting with each victim receiving the letter Villafana told OPRthat she was generally aware that the FBlstmds letters but belieyecl the FBt process didnt have anything to do with my proc ss Villafana told QPR the FBI hc1.cl their wn victirp TQtification ystem and their own guidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided Moreover Villafana didrit know when FBI letters went out or what they said Nevertheless Villafana told OPR that she did not intend forthe letters she drafted to interfere with the notification responsibilities lnAugust Villafana drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified by thy FBLbaseg the PBPD investigative file Villafc1.fi.c1 tolg OPR that sh made th cleci ion to make contact with victims early and she composed tl fotro_ductory lett r.and determined to whom they would be sent Although these letters contained CVR.A rights i:nfonnation Villafana mainly intended to usethem as a vehicle to introduce herselfand let the victims know.the federal investigation would be a different process from the State Attorneys Office investigation in whi"ch the victims felt they ha fnot l?e rtic well-treat cl_ Villafana 267told OPR that in a case 1r1wl ich he ne to b.e talk ng toyp girls freq11ently an.d a king 267them ally intimate OPR found no uniformity in the time lapse between the FBI interview ofa ictim and the issuance ofan FBI letter to that particular vfctim as the span oftime between 267the two events vanedfrom a few days to months Ftirthentiore not e,,ery victini mten,iewed by the FBI received art FBI fetter subsequent to her interview and s01ne FBl letters 267were sehtto victims ho had not.been inte_rviewed by the case agetits FinaJly,:OPR s_reyiew ofFBi INS data reveale.d sotne letters that appeared to have.been generated ih the VNS and nodrtcfodeqin the FBI case:fik OPR couid not.confirfn whether su_ch letters were imiiled or cieiivered V1llafafia who did not have supen,isorv authority over the FBIs Victim Speciaiist told OPR that she did I not review the FBI notification letters and did not sec them until she gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation,which was initiated.after Epstein.pied guilty on June CA Aronberg-06 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM questions she wanted to 223make sure that they feel like they can trust me Villafana directed the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters they were conducting interviews Villafana told OPR that the USAO had standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to the filing of federal charges and therefore Villafana not use a template or VNS-generated letter for content but instead used a letter she 223had created and crafted herself for another case The letters contained contact information for Villafana the FBI case agent and the Department 2s Office for Victims of Crime in Washington D.C and itemized the CVRA rights The USAO letters described the case as 223under investigation and stated that the victim would be notified anyone is charged in connection with the investigation The letters stated that in addition to their rights under the CVRA victims were entitled to counseling medical services and potential restitution from the perpetrator and that upon request the government would provide a list of counseling and medical services.278 Lastly the letters advised that investigators for the defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact Villafana or the FBI case agent Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the post arrest or indictment stage Villafana told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the USAO 2s CVRA obligations which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge Villafana told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and a USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter 223was coming with an introduction from the agents who were hand delivering them Later in the course of the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that she and the investigative team 223adopted an approach of providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required even before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging decisions had been made Villafana informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters but the letters were not reviewed by any of Villafana 2s supervisors who considered such correspondence to be a non-management task Acosta told OPR 2ve had no other case where I 2m even aware of victims being notified because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level Similarly Menchel told OPR Villafana told OPR that she thought that one point she showed the letter to tire USAO 2s Victim Witness Specialist who 223said it was fine The USAO 2s Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not file a charging document in the Epstein matter the USAO not obtain VNS information from tire FBI and did not assume responsibility for victim contact The USAO 2s Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epstein 2s victims and OPR 2s examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBI 2s VNS data concerning tire Epstein investigation OPR did locate some victim contact information in tire VNS relating to the USAO 2s case number associated with tire Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July Through its administration of tire Crime Victims Fund tire Department 2s Office for Victims of Crime supports programs and sendees to help victims of crime i I Villafana informed OPR that as tire USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordinator focusing on prosecutions of individuals who exploit children tluough the internet she 223treated the Guidelines as a floor and tried to provide a higher standard of contact i CA/Aronberg-0667 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I i I i I questions she wanted to make sure that they feel like they can trust me Villafana directed the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters as they were conducting i terviews Villafana told OPR that the USAO had no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to the filing of federal charges and therefore Villafana did not use a template or NS-generated letter for content but instead used a letter she had created and crafted herself for another case The letters contained contact information for Villafana the FBI case agent and the Departments Office for Victims of Crime in Washington D.C and itemized the CVRA rights The USAO letters described the case as under investigation and stated that the victim would be notified if anyone is charged in connection with the investigation The letters stated that in addition to their rights under the CVRA victims were entitled to counseling medical services and potential restitution from the perpetrator and that upon request the government would provide a list of counseling and medical services Lastly the letters advised that investigators for the defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact Villafana or the FBI case agent Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the post arrest or indictment stage Villafana told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the USAOs CVRA obligations which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge Villafana told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and a USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter was coming with an introduction from the agents who were hand delivering them Later in the course of the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that she and the investigative team adopted an approach of providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required even before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging decisions had been made Villafana informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters but the letters were not reviewed by any of Villafanas supervisors who considered such correspondence to be a non-management task Acosta told OPR Ive had no other case where Im even aware of victims being notified because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level Similarly Menchel told OPR Villafana told OPR that she thought that at one point she showed the letter to the USAOs Victim Witness Specialist who said it was fine The USAOs Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not file a charging document in the Epstein matter the USAO did not obtain VNS information from the FBI and did not assume responsibility for victim contact The USAOs Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epsteins victims and OPRs examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBls VNS data concerning the Epstein investigation OPR did locate some victim contact information in the VNS relating to the USAOs case number associated with the Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July Through its administration of the Crime Victims Fund the Departments Of ce for Victims of Crime supports programs and services to help victims of crime Villafana informed OPR tlIBt as tl1e USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordil13tor focusing on prosecutions of individuals who exploit children through the internet she treated the Guidelines as a floor and tried lo provide a higher standard of contact CA/Aronberg-0667 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM A Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO I did not consider it to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate Victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victim witness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered The FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications the time that we met with the girls The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters to some victims following in-person interviews and in the instances when she did not provide a victim with a letter she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to that set forth in the FBI letters.280 The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered few letters to victims The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to victims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery Nevertheless the case agent told OPR that she 223did not sit there and go through every right with the victims She stated however the beginning whether it was through the FBI Victim Specialist giving the letter me giving a letter the pamphlet believed that the girls knew that they were victims and had rights and they had a resource the FBI Victim Specialist that they could call for that The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected the FBI Victim Specialist with each victim the Victim Specialist handled the victims 223rights and resources VI AUGUST SEPTEMBER FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED Early in the investigation Villafana informed her supervisors that up to that point 223everyone whom the agents have spoken with so far has been willing to tell her story Getting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder Between August and September when the NPA was signed the FBI case agents interviewed victims On a few occasions Villafana met with victims together with the FBI Villafafia 2s May draft indictment included substantive crimes against multiple victims and Villafana described the circumstances of each of their encounters with Epstein in her prosecution memorandum There is some evidence indicating that during interviews some of the victims expressed to the FBI case agents and Villafana concerns about participating in a federal trial of Epstein and those discussions touched upon in broad terms the victims views regarding the desired outcome of the investigation Before the USAO entered into the NPA however no one from the The case agent told OPR remember giving letters to the girls when we would talk to them at tire conclusion or if I didnt have the file on me,l I had pamphlets in my car or I made sure the victims had contact information for the FBI 2s Victim Specialist CA/Aronberg-0668 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I I As Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO I did not cqnsider it to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought!by the Office I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victim witness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the Office USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered The FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications at the time that we met with the girls The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters to some victims following in-person interviews and in the instances when she did not provide a victim with a letter she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to that set forth in the FBI letters The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered a few letters to victims The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to victims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery Nevertheless the case agent told OPR that she did not sit there and go through every right with the victims She stated however In the beginning whether it was through the FBI Victim Specialist giving the letter me giving a letter the pamphlet I believed that the girls knew that they were victims and had rights and they had a resource the FBI Victim Specialist that they could call for that The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected the FBI Victim Specialist with each victim the Victim Specialist handled the victims rights and resources VI AUGUST SEPTEMBER FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED Early in the investigation Villafana informed her supervisors that up to that point everyone whom the agents have spoken with so far has been willing to tell her story Getting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder Between August and September when the NPA was signed the FBI case agents interviewed victims On a few occasions Villafana met with victims together with the FBI Villafanas May draft indictment included substantive crimes against multiple victims and Villafana described the circumstances of each of their encounters with Epstein in her prosecution memorandum There is some evidence indicating that during interviews some of the victims expressed to the FBI case agents and Villafana concerns about participating in a federal trial of Epstein and those discussions touched upon in broad terms the victims views regarding the desired outcome of the investigation Before the USAO entered into the NP A however no one from the The case agent told OPR I remember giving letters to the girls when we would talk to them at the conclusion or ifl didnt have the file on mef,l I had pamphlets in my car or I made sure the victims had contact infomiation for the FBIs Victim Specialistl CA/Aronberg-0668 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM government informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federal investigation through a state plea A The Case Agents and Villafana Solicit Some Victims Opinions about Resolving the Federal Investigation Villafana told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify They were very worried about their privacy rights Some of them wanted him to go to jail But some of them talked about bad experiences with the State Attorney 2s Office And so I felt like sending them back to the State Attorney 2s Office was not something that they would have supported Villafana told OPR that she also recalled that some victims 223expressed concern about their safety and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the investigation In her declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that the two CVRA petitioners 223never communicated their desires to me or the FBI case agents and my role-343 was to evaluate the entire situation consider the input received from all of the victims and allow the Office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly She also noted that some victims 223feared having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on their relationships with family members boyfriends and others In the FBI case agent 2s declaration filed in the CVRA litigation she stated 223During interviews conducted from to no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted She further described the concerns of some of the victims Throughout the investigation we interviewed many of Epstein 2s victims A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr Epstein Additionally Villafana created for OPR a chart listing victims identified in the state and federal investigations with notations indicating several with whom Villafana recalled discussing their opinions about resolving the case The chart however does not indicate what the victims said and Villafana told OPR that the information contained in the chart was based on her memory of her interactions with each victim OPR was unable to determine the details or extent of any such discussions occurring before September because Villafana did not have contemporaneous notes of the interviews and the FBI reports and corresponding notes of the interviews did not contain information about the victims desired outcomes The victims who provided information to OPR did not recall discussing potential resolution of the federal investigation with anyone from tire government In tire declaration Villafana stated 223Jane Doe specifically told me that she did not want Epstein prosecuted CA/Aronberg-0669 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I i I government informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federalJinvestigation through a state plea A The Case Agents and Villafana Solicit Some Victims Opinions about Resolving the Federal Investigation Villafana told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims we would ask them how they wanted the case to be resolved And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea Some of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all Most of them did not want to have to come to court and testify They were very worried about their privacy rights Some of them wanted him to go to jail But some of them talked about bad experiences with the State Attorneys Office And so I felt like sending them back to the State Attorneys Office was not something that they would have supported Villafana told OPR that she also recalled that some victims expressed concern about their safety and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the investigation In her declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that the two CVRA petitioners never communicated their desires to me or the FBI case agents and my role was to evaluate the entire situation consider the input received from all of the victims and allow the Office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly She also noted that some victims feared having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would have on their relationships with family members boyfriends and others In the FBI case agents declaration filed in the CVRA litigation she stated During interviews conducted from to no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be prosecuted She further described the concerns of some of the victims Throughout the investigation we interviewed many of Epsteins victims A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their identities to the public A number of the victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr Epstein Additionally Villafana created for OPR a chart listing victims identified in the state and federal investigations with notations indicating several with whom Villafana recalled discussing t11eir opinions about resolving ilie case The chart however does not indicate what t11e victims said and Villafana told OPR iliat t11e infonnation contained in t11e chart was based on her memory of her interactions with each victim OPR was unable to detennine the details or extent of any such discussions occurring before September because Villafana did not have contemporaneous notes of the interviews and the FBI reports and corresponding notes of the interviews did not contain infonnation about t11e victims desired outcomes The victims who provided infonnation to OPR did not recall discussing potential resolution of the federal investigation wit11 anyone from t11e government In t11e declaration Villafafia stated Jane Doe specifically told me that she did not want Epstein prosecuted CNAronberg-0669 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for some victims learning of the Epstein investigation and possible exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress Overall many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation They displayed feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us Our concerns about the victims well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were 223strong and 223believable she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein Rather 223they were embarrassed 223didn 2t want their parents to know and 223wanted to forget As of September the date the NPA was signed Villafana informed Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including confirmed minors and other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the Although the government had contacted many victims before the NPA was signed Villafana acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that 223individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement Before the NPA Is Signed Villafana Expresses Concern That Victims Have Not Been Consulted Before the NPA was signed Villafana articulated to her supervisors concerns about the government 2s failure to consult with victims July Villafana 2s Email Exchanges with Menchel In July Villafana learned that Menchel had discussed with defense counsel Sanchez a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein Villafana was upset by this information and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns A full account of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two Part One Section In that email she told him that it was 223inappropriate for you to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI ICE the victims and me These plea negotiations violate all of the The case agenl also noted tliat the victim who became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe liad expressed in her April video-recorded FBI interview her opinion tliat 223nothing should happen to Epstein The 223victims list for purposes of the NPA was intended to include the names of all individuals whom the government was prepared to name in a charging document victims of an offense enumerated in U.S.C Although the charges Villafana proposed on May were based on crimes against victims thereafter as explained in Chapter Two of this Report she continued to revise the proposed charges adding and removing victims as the federal investigation developed further evidence At the time the NPA was signed the proposed cliarges were based on crimes against victims but others had been identified for potential inclusion I CA/Aronberg-0670 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for some victims learning of the Epstein investigation and possible I exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress Overall many of the victims were troubled about the existence lof the investigation They displayed feelings of embarrassme and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused even to speak to us Our concerns about the victims well-being and getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were strong and believable she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein Rather they were embarrassed didnt want their parents to know and wanted to forget As of September the date the NPA was signed Villafana informed Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that she had compiled a preliminary list of victims including confirmed minors and other potential minor victims who had not yet been interviewed by the FBI Although the government had contacted many victims before the NP A was signed Villafana acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that individual victims were not consulted regarding the agreement Before the NPA Is Signed Villafana Expresses Concern That Victims Have Not Been Consulted Before the NP A was signed Villafana articulated to her supervisors concerns about the governments failure to consult with victims July Villafaiias Email Exchanges with Menchel In July Villafana learned that Menchel had discussed wi_th defense counsel Sanchez a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein Villafana was upset by this information and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns A full account of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two Part One Section lV.A.2 In that email she told him that it was inappropriate for you to make a plea offer that you know is completely unacceptable to the FBI ICE the victims and me These plea negotiations violate all of the The case agent also noted that the victim who became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe had ex-pressed in her April video-recorded FBI interview her opinion that nothing should happen to EpsteiIL The victims list for purposes of the NP A was intended to include the names of all individuals whom the government was prepared to name in a charging document as victims of an offense enumei;ated in U.S.C Although the charges Villafafia proposed on May were based on crimes.agains victims U1ereafter as explained in Chapter Two of this Report she continued to revise the proposed charges ad?ing and removing victims as the federal investigation developed further evidence At the time the NP A was signed U1e proposed charges were based on crimes against victims but 0U1ers had been identified for potential inclusion I I CA/Aronberg-0670 I FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM various iterations of the victims rights legislation Villafana explained to the victims to OPR her reference My concern was that Menchel was violating the CVRAwhich requires the attorneys for the government which includes me to confer with the victims and the VRRA which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what 2s happening with the case So in essence I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us about In his reply to Villafana 2s email and after noting that he found her email 223totally inappropriate Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy and he noted that Chief of the Criminal Division I am the person designated by the U.S Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with Departmental policy Perceiving Menchel 2s rebuke as a criticism of her judgment Villafana responded 223Raising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment and that her 223first and only concern in this case is the victims Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with Sanchez as a plea offer asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed Menchel told OPR that 223you have discussions with the defense all the time and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims is not even in the same universe as to how think about this Menchel also observed that on the very day that Villafana-334.2 criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting her the FBI or the victims Villafana had herself sent an email to Sanchez offering discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr Epstein 2s case that could run concurrently with any state resolution without having spoken to the victims about her proposal.287 Villafana told OPR that 223some victims I felt strongly would have objected to a state-only disposition Villafana stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations he would only have been aware of the victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum which included information about the 223effects on the victims but did not likely contain information as to 223how they would like the case resolved Villafana asserted that Menchel 223never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be Menchel told OPR that the allegations in Villafana 2s email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo US AM and the CVRA were 223way out of line in terms of what the law is and the policies are As discussed the Department 2s position at tire time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were filed against a defendant In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Villafana 2s counsel asserted that her email to Sanchez was intended only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations CA/Aronberg-0671 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM various iterations of the victims rights legislation Villafana explained to OPR her reference to the victims I My concern was that Menchel was violating the CVRA!which requires the attorneys for the government which includes me to confer with the victims and the VRRA which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of whats happening with the case So in essence I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it In his reply to Villafanas email and after noting that he found her email totally inappropriate Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy and he noted that as Chief of the Criminal Division I am the person designated by the U.S Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with Departmental policy Perceiving Menchels rebuke as a criticism of her judgment Villafana responded Raising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment and that her first and only concern in this case is the victims Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with Sanchez as a plea offer asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed Menchel told OPR that you have discussions with the defense all the time and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims is not even in the same universe as to how I think about this Menchel also observed that on the very day that Villafana criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting her the FBI or the victims Villafana had herself sent an email to Sanchez offering to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr Epsteins case that could run concurrently with any state resolution without having spoken to the victims about her proposal Villafana told OPR that some victims I felt strongly would have objected to a state-only disposition Villafafia stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations he would only have been aware of the victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum which included infonnation about the effects on the victims but did not likely contain infonnation as to how they would like the case resolved Villafana asserted that Menchel never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be Menchel told OPR tliat the allegations in Villafanas email tliat he violated the Ashcroft Memo USAM and the CVRA were way out of line in terms of what tl1e law is and tl1e policies are As discussed tl1e Departments position at tl1e time was that tl1e CVRA did not apply before cliarges were filed against a defendant In conunenting on OPRs draft report Villafafias counsel asserted that her email to Sanchez was intended onlv to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations I CA/Aronberg-0671 I I I I FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions Villafana told OPR that during an 223early meeting with Acosta Sloman and Menchel which took place when were probably just entering into plea negotiations she raised the government 2s obligation to confer with victims.288 Initially Villafana told OPR she was instructed 223Don 2t talk to the victims Don 2t tell them what 2s happening but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims and she could not recall who gave her this instruction In a subsequent OPR interview Villafana recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting she was told 223Plea negotiations are confidential You can 2t disclose them Villafana remained uncertain who gave her this instruction but believed it may have been Acosta Neither Acosta Sloman nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafana was directed not to notify the victims Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims view something that I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I focused on at least at this time and he did not 223recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed Menchel wrote in his response to OPR have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the US AO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter Furthermore Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO because were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal and it would been 223premature to consider notification.290 September Villafana Informs Sloman Who Informs Acosta of Oosterbaan 2s Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was Required On September in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the government 2s then-pending offer to the defense Villafana raised the victim consultation issue advising that 223the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval which as CEOS Chief Oosterbaan politely reminded me is required under the law and that 223the PBPD Villafana could not recall the specific date of the meeting but Menchel left the USAO on August Villafana also recalled Menchel raising a concern that 223telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein In commenting on OPR 2s draft report Meuchels counsel reiterated his contention that Villafana 2s claim about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent Mill oilier evidence OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude dial the evidence to which Menchcl 2s attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafana 2s assertion that she liad received an instruction from a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations However it is also true that OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims This is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafana disagreed but given OPR 2s conclusion that the Department did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the alleged meeting and instruction i CA/Aronberg-0672 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Villafana Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions I Villafana told OPR that during an early meeting with Acosta Sloman and Menchel which took place when we were probably just entering into plea negotiations she raised the governments obligation to confer with victims Initially Villafana told OPR she was instructed Dont talk to the victims Dont tell them whats happening but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims and she could not recall who gave her this instruction In a subsequent OPR interview Villafana recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting she was told Plea negotiations are confidential You cant disclose them Villafana remained uncertain who gave her this instruction but believed it rriay have been Acosta Neither Acosta Sloman nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafana was directed not to notify the victims Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims view is something that I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time and he did not recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed Menchel wrote in his response to OPR I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter Furthermore Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO because we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal and it would have been premature to consider notification September Villafana Informs Sloman Who Informs Acosta of Oosterbaans Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was Required On September in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the governments then-pending offer to the defense Villafana raised the victim consultation issue advising that the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval which as CEOS Chief Oosterbaan politely reminded me is required under the law and that the PBPD Villafana could not recall the specific date of the meeting but Menchel left the USAO on August Villafana also recalled Mcnchcl raising a concern that telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstei!l In commenting on OPRs draft report Mcnchcls counsel reiterated his contention that Villafanas claim about a meeting involving Mcnchcl in which she was instructed not lo consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent wiU1 0U1cr evidence OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude Ural U1c evidence to which Mcnchcls attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafanas assertion that she rad received an instruction from a supervisor not to infonn victi1ns about the plea negotiations However it is also true tlml OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting al which victim consullation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims Tins is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafana disagreed but given OPRs conclusion tlJ.al the partmenl did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brough OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding U1e alleged meeting and instruction CA/Aronberg-0672 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta Villafana recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone possibly after he had spoken to Acosta and stated 223You can 2t do that now Villafana did not recall Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction Villafana told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed Sloman told her 2ve been advised that pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification Sloman did not recall any discussions before the NPA was signed about contacting the victims or conferring with them regarding the potential resolution of the case Sloman told OPR that he 223did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA and did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution in filed cases Sloman said that no one other than Villafana raised the notification issue and because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter Sloman 223did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA Lourie told OPR that he had no memory of Villafana being directed not to speak to the victims about the Similarly the attorney assumed Lourie 2s supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he 223assumed that was being handled Acosta did not recall the September email but told OPR that 223there is no requirement to notify the victims because it 2s not a plea it 2s deferring in favor of a state prosecution Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any 223pre-NPA discussions regarding victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the Ultimately Acosta acknowledged to OPR 223Clearly given the way it 2s played out it may have been much better if we had consulted with the victims CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO 2s stance that the CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation but in his view the USAO 223posture was not abuse of discretion or ethical issue but rather reflected a 223serious and legitimate Villafana told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because was the head of CEOS and because I tliink they were tired ofhcaring me nag them to notify the victims As previously noted Villafana 2s statement tliat victim approval liad to be obtained was incorrect Even when applicable tlie CVRA only requires consultation with victims not their approval of a plea agreement Moreover Villafana 2s comments concerning the pre-charge application of the USAO 2s CVRA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate the USAO 2s CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August Lourie noted that during this period he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the office but was 223helping out from offsite because he had 223historical knowledge of the case The AUSA who for a time sewed as Villafana 2s co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not 223know anything about discussions in the USAO regarding the need to inform victims of the likely disposition of tire case The AUSA stated tliat he stopped working on the case 223months earlier and that he 223didn 2t have anything to do with the NPA negotiations Villafana told OPR that she w-as not aware of any 223improper pressure or promise made to Acosta in order to instruct her not to make disclosures to the victimfs i i I CA/Aronberg-0673 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal loman forwarded this email to Acosta Villafana recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone possibly after he had spoken to Acosta and stated You cant do that now Villafana did not recall Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction Villafana told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed Sloman told her Weve been advised that pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification Sloman did not recall any discussions before the NP A was signed about contacting the victims or conferring with them regarding the potential resolution of the case Sloman told OPR that he did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NP A and we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution in filed cases Sloman said that no one other than Villafana raised the notification issue and because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter Sloman did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA Lourie told OPR that he had no memory of Villafana being directed not to speak to the victims about the NP A Similarly the attorney who assumed Louries supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he assumed that was being handled Acosta did not recall the September email but told OPR that there is no requirement to notify the victims because its not a plea its deferring in favor of a state prosecution Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any pre-NP A discussions regarding victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA Ultimately Acosta acknowledged to OPR Clearly given the way its played out it may have been much better if we had consulted with the victims CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAOs stance that the CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation but in his view the USAO posture was not an abuse of discretion or an ethical issue but rather reflected a serious and legitimate Villafana told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because he was the head of CEOS and because I think they were tired of hearing me nag them lo notify the victimsl As previously noted Villafafias statement that victim approval had lo be obtained was incorrect Even when applicable the CVRA only requires consultation with victims not their approval of a plea agreement Moreover Villafafias comments concerning the pre-charge application of the USAOs CVRA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate the USAOs CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August Lourie noted that during this period he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the office but was helping out from offsite because he had historical knowledge of the case The AUSA who for a time served as Villafaiias co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not know anything about discussions in the USAO regarding the need to info nu victims of the likely disposition of the case The AUSA stated that he stopped working on the case months earlier and that he didnt have anything to do with the NPA negotiations Villafafia told OPR that she was not aware of any improper pressure or promise made to Acosta in order to instruct her not to make disclosures to the victim CA/Aronberg-0673 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM disagreement regarding the CVRA 2s requirements.295 Oosterbaan 2s disagreement was based on policy considerations and he told OPR that 223from a policy perspective CEOS would not 223take a position that you wouldn 2t consult with the victims Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or not the law required it the victims should been given an opportunity weigh in directly but he did not fault the USAO 2s motivations for failing to provide that opportunity The people I know Andy Lourie Jeff Sloman were trying to do the right thing They weren 2t acting unethically I just disagree with the outcome but the point is they weren 2t trying to do anything improper it was more of this question of you can let the victims weigh in on this you can get their input on this and maybe it doesn 2t sway you You still do what you 2re going to do but it 2s hard to say it was a complete completely clean exercise of prosecutorial discretion when the USAO didn 2t really know what the victims would say Sloman told OPR don 2t think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and Epstein was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims VIL SEPTEMBER JUNE AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED THE USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed Villafana and the case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation However the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NPA 2s nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein 2s defense counsel regarding victim notifications.296 As a result although the expectation in the USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA the monetary damages provision and the state plea the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys who strongly objected to the government 2s notification plan In addition Villafana and the case agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NPA monetary damages provision would damage the victims credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial In the end Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney 2s discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June Oosterbaan stated that in retrospect 223maybe I should have been more aggressive with how I dealt with the USAO The NPA nondisclosure provision stated 223The parties anticipate that this agreeihent will not be made part of any public record If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure i CA/Aronberg-0674 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM disagreement regarding the CVRAs requirements Oosterbaans disagreement was based on I policy considerations and he told OPR that from a policy perspective CE,OS would not take a position that you wouldnt consult with the victims Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or not the law required it the victims should have been given an opportunity to weigh in directly but he did not fault the USAOs motivations for failing to provide that opportunity The people I know Andy Lourie Jeff Sloman were trying to do the right thing They werent acting unethically I just disagree with the outcome but the point is they werent trying to do anything improper it was more of this question of you can let the victims weigh in on this you can get their input on this and maybe it doesnt sway you You still do what youre going to do but its hard to say it was a complete completely clean exercise of prosecutorial discretion when the USAO didnt really know what the victims would say Sloman told OPR I dont think we had a concern about entering into the NP A at that point in terms of notifying victims I was under the perception that once the NP A was entered into and Epstein was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims VII SEPTEMBER JUNE AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED THE USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NP A was signed Villafana and the case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation However the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NP As nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epsteins defense counsel regarding victim notifications As a result although the expectation in the USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NP A the monetary damages provision and the state plea the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys who strongly objected to the governments notification plan In addition Villafana and the case agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NP A monetary damages provision would damage the victims credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial In the end Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorneys discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pied guilty in June Oosterbaan stated that in retrospect maybe I should have been more aggressive with how I dealt with the USAOl The NPA nondisclosure provision stated The parties anticipate that this agree1hent will not be made part of any public record If the United Stales receives a Freedom of Infonnation Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement it will provide notice to Epstein before nlclkiflg that disclosure CNAronberg-0674 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM A September October The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential Impeachment I I In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafana on September defense attorney Lefkowitz asked Villafana to whatever you can to prevent the NPA from becoming public Villafana forwarded this email to Acosta Lourie and the new West Palm Beach manager noting that don 2t intend to do anything with it except put it in the case file Acosta responded that he 223thought the NPA already binds us not to make it public except as required by law or FOIA and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media about the NPA 223this is the State Attorney 2s show Acosta added other words what more does he want Villafana responded guess is that if we tell anyone else like the police chief or FBI or the girls that we ask them not to disclose Lourie agreed noting that 223there really is no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy The PBPD Chief was only concerned that he not get surprised by all this Acosta responded that he would set up a call on September to talk 223about who we can tell and how much Also on September Villafana emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims she planned to 223meet with the girls myself to explain how the system for obtaining relief under J.S.C will work Villafana also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him 223what I can tell the attorney representative and the girls about the agreement and she assured Lefkowitz that her office telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone Villafana also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney representative position and advocated for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter On September Villafana emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the victims about the NPA 223Can you give me a call I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls Villafana told OPR that because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the victims she reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or Sloman in order to coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein Villafana told OPR that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be Villafana had assured Lefkowitz that the NPA 223would not be made public or filed with the Court but it would remain part of our case file It probably would be subject to a FOIA request but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process Acosta told OPR that lie believed that the NPA 223would see the light of day because the victims would have to 223hear about their rights from somewhere and 223given the press interest eventually this would be FOIA 2d Lourie told OPR that the provisions of the NPA 223that benefitted the victims were there for the victims to take advantage of and they did How they were going to receive that information and when they were going to receive it is a different question but there 2s no issue with the fact that they were going to get that information OPR was unable to determine whether the call took place I CA/Aronberg-0675 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I A September October The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerhed about Potential Impeachment I I I In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafana on September defense attorney Lefkowitz asked Villafana to do whatever you can to prevent the NPA from becoming public Villafana forwarded this email to Acosta Lourie and the new West Palm Beach manager noting that I dont intend to do anything with it except put it in the case file Acosta responded that he thought the NPA already binds us not to make it public except as required by law or FOIA and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media about the NP A this is the State Attorneys show Acosta added In other words what more does he want Villafana responded My guess is that if we tell anyone else like the police chief or FBI or the girls that we ask them not to disclose Lourie agreed noting that there really is no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy The PBPD Chief was only concerned that he not get surprised by all this Acosta responded that he would set up a call on September to talk about who we can tell and how much Also on September Villafana emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims she planned to meet with the girls myself to explain how the system for obtaining reliefunder U.S.C will work Villafana also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him what I can tell the attorney representative and the girls about the agreement and she assured Lefkowitz that her office is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone Villafana also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney representative position and advocated for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter On September Villafana emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the victims about the NPA Can you give me a call I am meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls Villafana told OPR that because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the victims she reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or Sloman in order to coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein Villafana told OPR that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be Villafana had assured Lefkowitz that the NP A would not be made public or filed with the Court but it would remain part of our case file It probably would be subject to a FOIA request but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process Acosta told OPR that he believed that the NP A would see the light of day because the victims would have to hear about tl1eir rights from somewhere and given the press interest eventually this would be FOIA Lourie told OPR that the provisions of the NPA that benefitted the victims were tl1ere for the victims to take advantage of and they did How they were going to receive tllat infonnation and when tlley were going to receive it is a different question but theres no issue witl1 the fact that t11ey were going to get tllat infonnation OPR was unable to detennine whether tl1e call took place CA/Aronberg-0675 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM involved in such notifications According to Villafafia Sloman then directed her to have the case agents make the victim notifications Accordingly Villafana directed the case agents to 223meet with the victims to provide them with information regarding the terms of the NPA and the conclusion of the federal investigation The case agent told OPR 223There was a discussion that Marie and I had as to how we would tell them and what we would tell them and what that was I don 2t recall but it was the terms of the agreement Villafana believed that if 223victims were properly notified of the terms of the NPA that applied to them regarding their right to seek damages from Epstein and he paid those damages that the rest of the NPA doesn 2t need to be disclosed Villafana 223anticipated that the case agents would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court change of plea hearing but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first victims were notified by the FBI Villafana told OPR that it was her belief that because the USAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause the government could not disclose the NPA to the general public but victims could be informed 223because by its terms they needed to be told what the agreement was about Villafana told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a concern that if victims learned of the NPA they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea Within a week after the NPA was signed news media began reporting that the parties had reached a deal to resolve the Epstein case For example on October the New York Post reported that Epstein 223has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about months and noted that Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that 223the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge The case agent recalled informing some victims that 223there was an agreement reached and would not be pursuing this federally In October for example the case agents met with victim Courtney Wild advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement According to the case agent during that meeting the case agents told Wild 223that an agreement had been reached Mr Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges and there would not be a federal prosecution However in a declaration filed in in the CVRA litigation Wild described the conversation differently The agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in State court and may plea xzc to state charges related to some of his other victims I knew that State charges had nothing to do with me Dan Mangan 221Unliappy Ending Plea Deal 227Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages New York Post Oct See also 223Model Shop Denies Epstein Tie Aeu York Post Oct 223Andrew Pal Faces Sex List Shame Mail on Sunday Oct 223Epstein EyesSex-Rap Relief New York Post Oct 223Sex Case 2Victims Lining Up New York Post 223Page Six Oct Dareh Gregorian and Mathew Nestel Was Teen Prey of Pervert Tycoon New York Post Oct The following month the Palm Beach Post reported the end of the federal investigation as well See 223Epstein Has One Less Worry These Days Palm Beach Post Nov 223How Will System Judge Palm Beach Predator Palm Beach Post 223Opinion Nov The co-case agent recalled meeting with the victims about the resolution of the case but could not recall the specifics of die discussions i I CA/Aronberg-0676 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM involved in such notifications According to Villafana Sloman then directecl her to have the case agents make the victim notifications Accordingly Villafana directed the case agents to meet with the victims to provide them with information regarding the terms of the NPA and the conclusion of the federal investigation The case agent told OPR There was a discussion that Marie and I had as to how we would tell them and what we would tell them and what that was I dont recall but it was the terms of the agreement Villafana believed that if victims were properly notified of the tern1s of the NPA that applied to them regarding their right to seek damages from Epstein and he paid those damages that the rest of the NPA doesnt need to be disclosed Villafana anticipated that the case agents would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court change of plea hearing but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first victims were notified by the FBI Villafana told OPR that it was her belief that because the USAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause the government could not disclose the NPA to the general public but victims could be informed because by its terms they needed to be told what the agreement was about Villafana told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a concern that if victims learned of the NPA they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea Within a week after the NPA was signed news media began reporting that the parties had reached a deal to resolve the Epstein case For example on October the New York Post reported that Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about months and noted that Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge The case agent recalled informing some victims that there was an agreement reached and we would not be pursuing this federally In October for example the case agents met with victim Courtney Wild to advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement According to the case agent during that meeting the case agents told Wild that an agreement had been reached Mr Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges and there would not be a federal prosecution However in a declaration filed in in the CVRA litigation Wild described the conversation differently The agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in State court and may plea sic to state charges related to some of his other victims I knew that State charges had nothing to do with me Dan Mangan Unhappy Ending Plea Deal-Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages New York Post Oct See also Model Shop Denies Epstein Tie New York Post Oct Andrew Pal Faces Sex List Shame Mail on Sunday Oct EpsteinEyes 267sex-Rap Relief New York Post Oct Sex Case Victims Lining Up New York Post Page Six Oct Dareh Gregorian and Mathew Nestel I Was Teen Prey of Pervert Tycoon New York Post Oct The following month the Palm Beach Post reported the end of the federal investigation as well See Epstein Has One Less Worry These Days Palm _Beach Post Nov How Will System Judge Palm Beach Predator Palm Beach Post Opinion Nov The co-case agent recalled meeting with the victims about the resolution of the case but could not recall the specifics of the discussions CA/Aronberg-0676 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM During this meeting the Agents not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against me I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me My understanding of the agents explanation was that the federal investigation would continue I also understood that my own case would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein In addition the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to Villafana in an email Jane Doe asked me why Epstein was receiving such a lite szc jail sentence and Jane Doe has asked for our Victim Witness coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much needed professional counseling Other than that their response was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for pursuing justice and not giving The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims that individual cried and expressed sense of relief Counsel for 223Jane Doe told OPR that while his client recalled meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions she did not recall receiving any information about Epstein 2s guilty plea In a letter to OPR 223Jane Doe 2s attorney stated that although her client recalled speaking with an FBI agent she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea After meeting with these three victims the FBI case agent became concerned that if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial the defense could use the victims knowledge of the NPA 2s monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.304 The case agent explained to OPR that she became 223uncomfortable talking to the victims about the damages provision and that as the lead investigator we did end up going to trial if Mr Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand testifying that told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr Epstein for money and was not comfortable with that I didn 2t think it was right Similarly the co-case agent told OPR 223Thaf why we went back to Marie Villafana and said we 2re not comfortable now putting this out there because it 2s likely that the case agent and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial and this could be a problem Villafana told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of 223offering a bribe The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports because wasn 2t an interview of them it was a notification If there was something relevant that came up pertaining to the investigation or something that I thought was noteworthy I might have recorded it in an interview report I Within limitations set by tire Federal Rules of Evidence a defendant may attack the credibility of a witness tlirough evidence of bias which may include the witness liaving received money or expecting to receive money from the government the defendant or other sources as a result of the witness 2s allegations or testimony i CA/Aronberg-0677 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I During this meeting the Agents did not explain that an agrJement I had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of gpstein for federal charges against me I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me My understanding of the agents explanation was that the federal investigation would continue I also understood that my own case would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein In addition the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to Villafana in an email Jane Doe asked me why Epstein was receiving such a lite sic jail sentence and Jane Doe has asked for our Victim Witness coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much needed professional counseling Other than that their response was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for pursuing justice and not giving up The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims that individual cried and expressed a sense of relief Counsel for Jane Doe told OPR that while his client recalled meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions she did not recall receiving any information about Epsteins guilty plea In a letter to OPR Jane Doe attorney stated that although her client recalled speaking with an FBI agent she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea After meeting with these three victims the FBI case agent became concerned that if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial the defense could use the victims knowledge of the NP As monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims The case agent explained to OPR that she became uncomfortable talking to the victims about the damages provision and that as the lead investigator if we did end up going to trial if Mr Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand testifying that I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr Epstein for money and was not comfortable with that I didnt think it was right Similarly the co-case agent told OPR Thats why we went back to Marie Villafana and said were not comfortable now putting this out there because its likely that the case agent and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial and this could be a problem Villafana told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of"offering a bribe The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports because it wasnt an interview of them it was a notification If there was something relevant that came up pertaining to the im,estigation or mething that I thought was noteworthy I might have recorded it in interview reportl I Within limitations set by the Federal Rules of Evidence a defendant may attack he credibility of a witness through evidence of bias which may include the witness having received money or e:-..-pecting to receive money from the government the defendant or ot11er sources as a result of t11e witnes allegations or testimony CA Aron be FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for victims to enhance their stories and that the defense would try to have Villafana or the case agents removed from the case Both the lead case agent and Villafana told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafana the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of a breach and subsequent trial they contacted the USAO 2s Professional Responsibility Officer for advice Villafana recalled that during a brief telephone consultation the Professional Responsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that 2s not really that big a concern but if you 2re concerned about it then you should stop making the notification In her CVRA declaration the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO the case agents stopped notifying victims about the NPA October Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications While the case agents and Villafana considered the impact that notifying the victims about the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial defense counsel also raised concerns about what the victims could be told about the NPA As discussed in Chapter Two after the NPA was signed on September the USAO proposed using a special master to select the attorney representative for the victims which led to further discussions about the provision On October when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafana a letter responding to the USAO 2s proposal to use a special master he cautioned that 223neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case because such communications would 223violate the confidentiality of the agreement and would prevent Epstein from having control over 223what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October letter to Acosta arguing that 223neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case Rather Lefkowitz wanted to 223participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals On October Villafana raised the issue of victim notificationwith Sloman stating We also have to contact the victims to tell them about the outcome of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr Epstein If we don 2t do that it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to 221cold call the girls As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two on October Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about victim notification nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted in July and he was assigned to handle the litigation Villafana told OPR that they consulted the Professional Responsibility Officer over the telephone the call took no more titan 223five minutes and the Professional Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus 223wouldnt have any context for it Lefkowitz also argued that direct contact with the victims could violate grand jury secrecy rules i I CA/Aronberg-0678 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for victims to enhance their stories and that the defense would try to have Villafana or the case agents removed from the case Both the lead case agent and Villafana told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafana the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of a breach and subsequent trial they contacted the USAOs Professional Res onsibility Officer for advice Villafana recalled that during a brief telephone consultation the Professional Responsibility Officer advised her and the case agent that its not really that big a concern but if youre concerned about it then you should stop making the notification In her CVRA declaration the case agent stated that after conferring with the USAO the case agents stopped notifying victims about the NP A October Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications While the case agents and Villafana considered the impact that notifying the victims about the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial defense counsel also raised concerns about what the victims could be told about the NP A As discussed in Chapter Two after the NPA was signed on September the USAO proposed using a special master to select the attorney representative for the victims which led to further discussions about the provision On October when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafana a letter responding to the USAOs proposal to use a special master he cautioned that neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case because such communications would violate the confidentiality of the agreement and would prevent Epstein from having control over what is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October letter to Acosta arguing that either federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case Rather Lefkowitz wanted to participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified individuals On October Villafana raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman stating We also have to contact the victims to tell them about the outcome of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting them regarding possible claims against Mr Epstein lf we dont do that it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected attorney to cold call the girls As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two on October Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court November The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about victim notification nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted in July and he was assigned to handle the litigation Villafana told OPR that they 9onsulted the Professional Responsibility Officer over the telephone the call took no more than five minutes and the Professional Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus wouldnt have anyl coi:itext for it I Lefkowitz also argued t11at direct contact with the victims could violate grandjll.f secrecy rules i I i CA/Aronberg-0678 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October not to 223contact any of the identified individuals potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter Shortly thereafter Sloman drafted a response to Lefkowitz 2s letter which Acosta revised to clarify the 223inaccurate representations made by Lefkowitz in particular noting that Acosta did not agree to a 223gag order with regard to victim contact The draft response as revised by Acosta stated You should understand however that there are some communications that are typical in these matters As an example our Office has an obligation to contact the victims to inform them that either the Special Master or his designee will be contacting them Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we would any similarly situated case.308 In a November letter Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had discussed financial settlement with them Sloman noted that the private investigators 223actions are troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of the matter which includes informing them that as part of the resolution Mr Epstein has agreed to pay damages in some circumstances The same day Villafana emailed Sloman expressing her concern that we file charges now cross-examination will consist of 221and the government told you that if Mr Epstein is convicted you are entitled to a large amount of damages right October November The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is 223Under Investigation Although Villafana and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the NPA the FBI continued its investigation of the case which included locating and interviewing potential victims In October and November the FBI interviewed potential new victims of whom had been identified in a 223preliminary victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the Villafana later emailed Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a 223general discussion about staying out of die civil litigation Sloman 2s draft also staled dial Acosta had informed die defense in a previous conference call tliat the USAO would not accept a 223gag order OPR recovered only a draft version of die communication and was unable to find any evidence that die draft letter was finalized or sent to defense counsel Subsequent records also referred to the prosecutors concerns about creating impeachment evidence and that such concerns played a role in their decision not to notify victims of Ilie NPA until after Epstein pled guilty In August Ilie AUSA handling the CVRA litigation emailed Villafana Acosta and Sloman expressing his understanding dial the 223victims were not consulted concerning the NPA because the USAO did not believe the CVRA applied Acosta responded I recall we also believed tliat contacting the victims would compromise them as potential witnesses Epstein argued very forcefully tliat they were doing tliis for tire money and we did not want to discuss liability with them which was a key part of the agree me nt CA/Aronberg-0679 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October not to contact ny of the identified individuals potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and their resp ctive counsel in this matter Shortly thereafter Sloman drafted a response to Lef:lrnwitzs!letter which Acosta revised to clarify the inaccurate representations made by Lefkowitz in particular noting that Acosta did not agree to a gag order with regard to victim contact The draft response as revised by Acosta stated You should understand however that there are some communications that are typical in these matters As an example our Office has an obligation to contact the victims to inform them that either the Special Master or his designee will be contacting them Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we would any similarly situated case In a November letter Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had discussed financial settlement with them Sloman noted that the private investigators actions are troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of the matter which includes informing them that as part of the resolution Mr Epstein has agreed to pay damages in some circumstances The same day Villafana emailed Sloman expressing her concern that if we file charges now cross-examination will consist of and the government told you that if Mr Epstein is convicted you are entitled to a large amount of damages right October November The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating That the Case is Under Investigation Although Villafana and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the NPA the FBI continued its investigation of the case which included locating and interviewing potential victims In October and November the FBI interviewed potential new victims of whom had been identified in a preliminary victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the Villafafia later emailed Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a general discussion about staying out of the civil litigation Slomans draft also stated Uiat Acosta had informed U1e defense in a previous conference call that the USAO would not accept a gag order OPR recovered only a draft version of U1e communication and was unable to find any evidence that the draft letter was finalized or sent to defense counsel Subsequent records also referred to U1e prosecutors concerns about creating impeaclunent evidence and Uiat such concerns played a role in their decision not to notify victims of U1e NP A until after Epstein pied guilty In August U1e AUSA liandling the CVRA litigation emailed Villafafia Acosta and Sloman expressing his understanding that the victims were not consulted concerning the NPA because the USAO did not believe the CVRA applied Acosta responded As I recall we also believed that contacting the victims ould compromise them as potential witnesses Epstein argued very forcefully that U1ey were doing this for U1e money and we did not want to discuss liability wiU1 them which was a key part of the agreement CA/Aronberg-0679 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case Villafana acknowledged that she and the case agents did not tell any of the 223new post-NPA-signing victims about the agreement because that point we believed that the NPA was never going to be performed and that we were in fact going to be charging Mr Epstein On October the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim the case agents had interviewed two days earlier This letter was identical to the VNS form notice letter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed describing the case as 223under investigation and requesting the victim 2s 223patience The letter listed the eight CVRA rights but made no mention of the NPA or the provision Villafana told OPR she was unaware the FBI sent the letter but she knew 223there were efforts to make sure that we had identified all victims of the crimes under investigation In response to OPR 2s questions about the accuracy of the FBI letter 2s characterization of the case as 223under investigation Villafana told OPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October and this point we weren 2t actively looking for additional charges but 223the investigation wasn 2t technically suspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter about Epstein 2s State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal Investigation but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan In anticipation of Epstein 2s state court plea Villafana reported on November to Acosta Sloman and other supervisors that she had learned from FBI agents who met with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek that the State Attorney 2s Office wanted the USAO to notify victims of the state plea hearing Belohlavek would still like us to do the victim notifications The State does not have a procedure like we do federally where the Court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend judicial proceedings so I do not know how many victims will actually want to be present.311 Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epstein 2s state plea hearing On November Villafana decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from the defense about the information given to victims she 223would put the victim notification in writing She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter in which among other things Not all lite individuals interviewed qualified for inclusion on the victim list For example one would not cooperate with investigators a second claimed to have simply massaged Epstein with no sexual activity and a third claimed she had no contact with Epstein Villafana told OPR that she understood tire state took the position that because 223there was either only one or two victims involved in their case they 223could not do victim notifications to all of the victims i i CA/Aronberg-0680 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I NP A The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NP A or indicate that the I victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case Vil,lafana acknowledged that she and the case agents did not tell any of the new post-NP A-signing victims about the agreement because at that point we believed that the NP A was never going to be performed and that we were in fact going to be charging Mr Epstein On October the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim the case agents had interviewed two days earlier This letter was identical to the VNS form notice letter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed describing the case as under investigation and requesting the victims patience The letter listed the eight CVRA rights but made no mention of the NPA or the provision Villafana told OPR she was unaware the FBI sent the letter but she knew there were efforts to make sure that we had identified all victims of the crimes under investigation In response to OPRs questions about the accuracy of the FBI letters characterization of the case as under investigation Villafana told OPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October and at this point we werent actively looking for additional charges but the investigation wasnt technically suspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter about Epsteins State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal Investigation but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan In anticipation of Epsteins state court plea Villafana reported on November to Acosta Sloman and other supervisors that she had learned from FBI agents who met with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek that the State Attorneys Office wanted the USAO to notify victims of the state plea hearing Belohlavek would still like us to do the victim notifications The State does not have a procedure like we do federally where the Court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend judicial proceedings so I do not know how many victims will actually want to be present Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epsteins state plea hearing On November Villafana decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from the defense about the information given to victims she would put the victim notification in writing She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter in which among other things Not all the individuals interviewed qualified for inclusion on the victim list For example one would not cooperate with investigators a second claimed to have simply massaged Epstein with no sexual activity and a third claimed she had no contact with Epstein Villafafia told OPR that she understood the state took the position that because there was either only one or two victims involved in their case they could not do victim notifications to all of the vi tims CA Aron be i I I FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case including Epstein 2s agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve months in county jail and the victims ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein The letter also would invite victims to appear at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be filed by the State Attorney 2s Office Sloman and Villafana exchanged edits on the draft victim notification letter and Villafana also informed Sloman that 223there are a few girls who didn 2t receive the original letters so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for those Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the government 2s need to meet its 223statutory obligation Justice for All Act of to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement and his intent to 223notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday November Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims asserting that it was 223incendiary and inappropriate and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of He argued that the defense 223should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims He also insisted that if any notification letters were sent to 223victims who still have not been identified to us it should happen only after Mr Epstein has entered his plea and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than the government On November at Sloman 2s instruction Villafana provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter which would advise victims that state court plea was to occur on December In a November letter to Acosta Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims until after Epstein 2s plea and sentencing Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to appear at Epstein 2s state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a proceeding In a November reply letter to Lefkowitz Acosta did not address the substance of Lefkowitz 2s arguments but accused the defense team of essence presenting collateral challenges delaying effectuation of the NPA and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the NPA stand ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial Shortly thereafter Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors 223not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday December at p.m to provide you with time to review these options with your client In the letter Acosta also refuted defense allegations that Villafana had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary damages stating that 223the victims were not told of the availability of Section relief during the investigation phase of this matter On December Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher 223reaffirming the NPA but taking 223serious issue with On November two months after the NPA was signed the lead case agent informed Villafana that only of the then-known victims had received victim notification letters from either the FBI or tire USAO On December the lead case agent reported to Villafana that she was 223still holding many of the original V/W letters addressed to victims from the USAO Villafana understood tire state prosecutors had set the December date and emailed them for confirmation stating the mailer is set for the 14tli please let me know so I can include dial in my victim notifications i I CA/Aronberg-0681 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal casJ including Epsteins agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve months in county Jail and the victims ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein The letter also would invite victims to appear at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be filed by the State Attorneys Office Sloman and Villafana exchanged edits on the draft victim notification letter and Villafana also informed Sloman that there are a few girls who didnt receive the original letters so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for those Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the governments need to 267meet its statutory obligation Justice for All Act of to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement and his intent to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday November Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims asserting that it was incendiary and inappropriate and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of He argued that the defense should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victims He also insisted that if any notification letters were sent to victims who still have not been identified to us it should happen only after Mr Epstein has entered his plea and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than the government On November at Slomans instruction Villafana provided Lefkowitz with the draft victim notification letter which would advise victims that the state court plea was to occur on December In a November letter to Acosta Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims until after Epsteins plea and sentencing Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to appear at Epsteins state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a proceeding In a November reply letter to Lefkowitz Acosta did not address the substance of Lefkowitzs arguments but accused the defense team of in essence presenting collateral challenges delaying effectuation of the NP A and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the NP A we stand ready to unwind the Agreement and proceed to trial Shortly thereafter Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday December at p.m to provide you with time to review these options with your client In the letter Acosta also refuted defense allegations that Villafana had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary damages stating that the victims were not told of the availability of Section relief during the investigation phase of this matter On December Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher reaffirming the NP A but taking serious issue with On November two months after the NP A was signed tl1e lead case agent infonned Villafana tl1at only of the then-known victims had received victim notification letters from either the FBI or tl1e USAO On December the lead case agent reported to Villafana tllat she was still holding many of the original V/W letters addressed to victims from the USAO Villafana understood the state prosecutors had set the December date and emailed them for confirmation stating Ilf the matter is set for the 14th please let me know so I can include that in my victim notifications I CA/Aronberg-0681 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the USAO 2s interpretation of the agreement and 223the use of Section The Starr and Lefkowitz letter asserted it was 223wholly inappropriate for the USAO to sent the proposed victim notification letter 223under any circumstances and 223strongly urged Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher The following day Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz with copies to Acosta and Villafana asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the U.S.C proceedings as 223other relief to which they were entitled Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which may be entitled and 223the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation the filing of charges and the acceptance of a plea.314 Emphasis in original Sloman added Just as in U.S.C the CVRA these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court Our Non Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr Epstein to plead to a state offense The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S Attorney 2s Office to forego s/c its legal obligations.315 Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafana or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns 223Again federal law requires that victims have the 221reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case Sloman advised the defense three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr Epstein 2s punishment not the civil litigation Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement Along with this letter Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense The letter stated that 223the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed Epstein would plead guilty in state court the parties would recommend months of imprisonment at sentencing and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under U.S.C The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing As I mentioned above as part of the resolution of the federal investigation Mr Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges Mr Epstein 2s change of plea and sentencing will occur on December at_a before Judge Sandra McSorley See U.S.C and Emphasis in original Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to 223federalize a state plea but simply informing the victims of their rights Villafana informed OPR tliat Sloman approved and signed tire letter but she was the primary author of the document OPR notes dial Villafana was Ure principal author of most correspondence in the Epstein case and that following tire signing of the NPA regardless of whether the letter went out with her Sloman 2s or Acosta 2s signature the tliree attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence before a final version was sent to tire defense CA/Aronberg-0682 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the USAOs interpretation of the agreement and the use of Section The Starr and Lefkowitz letter asserted it was wholly inappropriate for the USAO to sen the proposed victim notification letter under any circumstances and strongly urged Acpsta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher The following day Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz with copies to Acosta and Villafana asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the U.S.C proceedings as other relief to which they were entitled Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation the filing of charges and the acceptance of a plea Emphasis in original Sloman added Just as in U.S.C the CVRA these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court Our Non Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr Epstein to plead to a state offense The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S Attorneys Office to forego sic its legal obligations Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafana or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns Again federal law requires that victims have the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case Sloman advised the defense The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr Epsteins punishment not the civil litigation Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement Along with this letter Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense The letter stated that the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been comp_leted Epstein would plead guilty in state court the parties would recommend months of imprisonment at sentencing and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under U.S.C The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing As I mentioned above as part of the resolution of the federal investigation Mr Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges Mr Epsteins change of plea and sentencing will occur on December at_ a.m before Judge Sandra McSorley See U.S.C and Emphasis in original Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to federalize a state plea but is simply infonning the victims of their rights Villafafia infonned OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter but she was the primary author of the document OPR notes that Villafafia was tl1e principal aut11or of most correspondence in the Epstein case and that following the signing of the NP A regardless of whether the letter went out with her Slomans or Acostas signature the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence before a final version was sent to the defense CA Aronberg-0682 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I i in Courtroom IF at the Palm Beach County Courthouse 205North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach Florida Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections and you are entitled to be present and to make a statement under oath If you choose you can submit a written statement under oath which may be filed by the State Attorney 2s Office on your behalf If you elect to prepare a written statement it should address the following the facts of the case and the extent of any harm including social psychological or physical harm financial losses loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence Fla Stat Sloman told OPR that he was 223proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify the victims even though it wasn 2t a federal case Whether we were required or not Sloman also told OPR that while didn 2t think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification letters think Marie and the agents were keeping the victims apprised at some level On December Villafana prepared letters containing the above information to be sent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Sloman requesting permission to send them.316 Sloman however had that day received a letter from Sanchez advising that Epstein 2s plea hearing was scheduled for January and requesting that the USAO 223hold off sending the victim notification letters until can further discuss the contents Also that day Starr and Lefkowitz submitted to Acosta the two lengthy 223independent ethics opinions supporting the defense arguments against the federal investigation and the NPA 2s use of U.S.C Sloman responded to Villafana 2s request with an email instructing her to 223Hold the letter Sloman told OPR that he 223wanted to push the victim notification letter out but his instruction to Villafana was 223the product of me speaking to somebody although he could not be definitive as to whom Sloman further told OPR that once the NPA 223looked like it was going to fall apart the USAO 223had concerns that if we gave them the victim notification letter and the deal fell apart then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you 2re entitled to monetary compensation On December Villafana contacted the attorney who at the time represented the victim who later became CVRA petitioner 223Jane Doe to inform him that she 223was preparing victim notification letters In her declaration filed in the CVRA litigation Villafana noted that she reached out to Jane Doe 2s counsel despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered The FBI case agent had emailed Villafana the day before stating 223The letter that is currently being revised needs to take into account that several victims have never been notified by your office or mine The case agent also slated do not feel that the defensel should have anything to do with the drafting or issuing of this letter My primary concern is that we meet our federal obligations to the victims in accordance with federal law i Villafana told OPR that she did not recall asking Sloman for an explanation for not sending the letters rather she 223just rememberedl putting them all in the Redweld and putting them in a drawer and being disgusted CA/Aronberg-0683 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I in Courtroom lF at the Palm Beach County Courthouse 205jNorth Dixie Highway West Palm Beach Florida Pursuant to J:lorida Statutes Sections and you are entitled to I be present and to make a statement under oath If you choose you can submit a written statement under oath which may be filed by the State Attorneys Office on your behalf If you elect to prepare a written statement it should address the following the facts of the case and the extent of any harm including social psychological or physical harm financial losses loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence Fla Stat Sloman told OPR that he was proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify the victims even though it wasnt a federal case Whether we were required or not Sloman also told OPR that while we didnt think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification letters I think Marie and the agents were keeping the victims apprised at some level On December Villafana prepared letters containing the above information to be sent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Sloman requesting permission to send them Sloman however had that day received a letter from Sanchez advising that Epsteins plea hearing was scheduled for January and requesting that the USAO hold off sending the victim notification letters until we can further discuss the contents Also that day Starr and Lefkowitz submitted to Acosta the two lengthy independent ethics opinions supporting the defense arguments against the federal investigation and the NPAs use of U.S.C Sloman responded to Villafanas request with an email instructing her to Hold the letter Sloman told OPR that he wanted to push the victim notification letter out but his instruction to Villafana was the product of me speaking to somebody although he could not be definitive as to whom Sloman further told OPR that once the NP A looked like it was going to fall apart the USAO had concerns that if we a ve them the victim notification letter and the deal fell apart then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that youre entitled to monetary compensation On December Villafana contacted the attorney who at the time represented the victim who later became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe to inform him that she was preparing victim notification letters In her declaration filed in the CVRA litigation Villafana noted that she reached out to Jane Doe 2s counsel despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered The FBI case agent had emailed Villafafia the day before stating The letter tiiat is currently being revised needs to take into account tliat several victims have never been notified by your office or mine The case agent also stated I do not feel that the defense should liave anytiling to do with the drafting or issuing of tllis letter My primary concern is that we meet our federal obligations to the victims in accordance wit11 deral law I Villafafia told OPR tliat she did not recall asking Slonian for an explanation for noi sending the letters rather she just remembered putting ti1em all in the Redweld and putting them in a drawer and being disgusted CA/Aronberg-0683 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i I I her a victim for purposes of the federal charges and continued to treat her as a victim because she wanted go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims i December Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea Hearing but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution Required by Law On December Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to 223the background and conduct of the investigation into Epstein Regarding issues relevant to victim notification in his transmittal letter Starr asserted that the 223latest episodes involving notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice time and time again are not being served By way of example Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately provided 223oral notification of the victim notification letter to one girl 2s attorney even though it was clear from the girl 2s recorded FBI interview that she 223did not in any manner view herself as a victim In his submissions Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims of the provision Villafana 2s decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice for All Act of a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available restitution not of any potential civil remedies Despite this fact she proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged federal victims Lefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate mechanism for compensating the victims than the government 2s proposed use of U.S.C and a trust fund would not violate Epstein 2s due process rights Lefkowitz took issue with the government 2s 223assertion that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the alleged victims or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so Lefkowitz further argued that the government misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA because neither applied to a public state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges In a letter from Villafana to Lefkowitz responding to his allegations that she had committed misconduct she specifically addressed the 223false allegations that the government had As noted previously in April this victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable to Epstein Villafana told OPR she was instructed by either Sloman or Acosta 223not to consider tliis individual as a victim for purposes of the NPA because she was not someone whom the Office was prepared to include in a federal charging document Accordingly the victim who became 223Jane Doe was not included on lire victim list ultimately furnished to the defense The attorney who was representing tliis victim at the time of her FBI interview was paid by Epstein and she subsequently obtained different counsel i CA/Aronberg-0684 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I I her a victim for purposes of the federal charges and continued to treat her as a victim because she wanted to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims December Acosta Advises the Defense That the;usAO Will Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victitns of the State Plea Hearing but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution as Required by Law On December Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NP A and to the background and conduct of the investigation into Epstein Regarding issues relevant to victim notification in his transmittal letter Starr asserted that the latest episodes involving notification to the alleged victims put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice time and time again are not being served By way of example Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately provided oral notification of the victim notification letter to one girls attorney even though it was clear from the girls recorded FBI interview that she did not in any manner view herself as a victim In his submissions Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims of the provision Villafafias decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification requirement under the Justice for All Act of a federal law that requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available restitution not of any potential civil remedies Despite this fact she proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged federal victims Lefkowitz also argued that a v1ct1m trust fund would provide a more appropriate mechanism for compensating the victims than the governments proposed use of U.S.C and a trust fund would not violate Epsteins due process rights Lefkowitz took issue with the governments assertion that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the alleged victims or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so Lefkowitz further argued that the government misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA because neither applied to a public state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges In a letter from Villafana to Lefkowitz responding to his allegations that she had committed misconduct she specifically addressed the false allegations that the government had As noted previously in April this victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable to Epstei1t Villafana told OPR she was instructed by either Sloman or Acosta not to consider this individual as a victim for purposes of U1e NP A because she was not someone whom the Office was preparedl to include in a federal charging document Accordingly the victim who became Jane Doe was not included qn U1e victim list ultimately furnished to U1e defense The attorney who was representing Utis victim at U1e time of her FBI interview was paid by Epstein and she subsequently obtained different counsel CA/Aronberg-0684 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM informed victims their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their allegations against Mr Epstein None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under Section prior to the investigation of the claims Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the NPA of the general terms of that Agreement You raised objections to any victim notification and no further notifications were done Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case If my reassurances are insufficient the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation On December Villafana forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter previously sent to the defense along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer Villafana 2s transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line 223The letters you requested One of the draft letters to Krischer to be signed by Villafana was to advise that the USAO had sent an enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed 223list of the identified victims and their contact information in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law The second draft letter to Krischer for Acosta 2s signature requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel 2s allegations that the State Attorney 2s Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender registration OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to Krischer.320 A few days later in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications Villafana emailed Sloman stating there anything that I or the agents should be doing Villafana told Sloman that 223the FBI case agent is all worked up because another agent and a named AUSA are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims in an unrelated matter We seem to be in a Catch OPR did not find a response to Villafana 2s email In their December meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press their objections to the USAO 2s involvement in the Epstein matter They requested that Acosta The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification letter sent to the defense on December except that it contained a new plea date of January Moreover the letters were not included in the publicly released State Attorney 2s file which included other correspondence from the USAO See Palm Beach State Attorney 2s Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein available at htm OPR was unable to locate any records indicating that such allegations had ever been referred to OPR Villafana told OPR that 223Catch was a reference to instructions from supervisors 223that we can 2t go forward on filing federal charges and was told not to do victim notifications and confer at the time CA/Aronberg-0685 i FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM informed victims of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough jnvestigation of their allegations against Mr Epstein None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under Section prior to the investigation of the claims Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the NP A of the general terms of that Agreement You raised objections to any victim notification and no further notifications were done Throughout this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though it would proceed to trial Notifying the witnesses of the possibility of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case If my reassurances are insufficient the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr Epstein should assure you of the integrity of the investigation On December Villafana forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter previously sent to the defense along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer Villafanas transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line The letters you requested One of the draft letters to Krischer to be signed by Villafana was to advise that the USAO had sent an enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed list of the identified victims and their contact information in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law The second draft letter to Krischer for Acostas signature requested that Krischer respond to defense counsels allegations that the State Attorneys Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender registration OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to Krischer A few days later in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications Villafana emailed Sloman stating Is there anything that I or the agents should be doing Villafana told Sloman that the FBI case agent is all worked up because another agent and a named AUSA are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims in an unrelated matter We seem to be in a Catch OPR did not find a response to Villafana email In their December meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press their objections to the USAOs involvement in the Epstein matter They requested that Acosta The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification leuer sent to the defense on December except that it contained a new plea date of January Moreover the lellers were not included in the publicly released Stale Allomeys file which included oilier correspondence from U1e USAO See Palm Beach State Attorneys Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein available at http://sal5.org/stateattomey/NewsRoom/indexPR htm OPR was unable to locate any records indicating Uiat such allegations liad ev.er been referred to OPR Villafana told OPR tliat Catch was a reference to instructions from supervisors fthat we cant go fonvard on filing federal charges and I was told not to do victim notifications and confer at the time CA/Aronberg-0685 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government 2s 223unprecedentedly expansive interpretation of U.S.C In a December response to the defense team Acosta offered to revise two paragraphs in the NPA to resolve 223disagreements with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epstein 2s liability to 223place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state proceedings understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of the time and place of Mr Epstein 2s state court sentencing hearing I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy In addition First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel I agree that the CVRA applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to state crime We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes Acosta told OPR that he 223would not have sent this letter without running it by Sloman if not other individuals in the office and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafana Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role or the role of the USAO direct the State Attorney 2s Office on its obligations with respect to state outcome Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO 2s initial concerns about the State Attorney 2s Office 2s handling of the Epstein case he did not believe it was appropriate to question that office 2s ability to 223fulfill whatever obligation they have and he added 223Let 2s not assume that the State Attorney 2s Office is full of bad actors Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding 223that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing Acosta also told OPR that the state would Sloman 2s handwritten notes from a December telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the defense 223Are there concerns re language to which Lefkowitz replied 223The state should have their own mechanism At the lime of the Epstein matter under the Florida Constitution upon request victims were afforded the 223right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of and to be present at a defendant 2s plea and sentencing Fla Const art I Similarly pursuant to state statute 223Law enforcement personnel stall ensure that victims are given information about 223the stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the victimf Fla Stat a Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement Fla Stat Moreover a case in which Hie victim is a minor child the guardian or family of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the disposition of any criminal or juvenile case including plea agreements Fla Stat I CA/Aronberg-0686 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the governments unprecedentedly expansive interpretation of U.S.C In a December response to the defense team Acosta Jrrered to revise two I paragraphs in the NP A to resolve disagreements with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epsteins liability to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state proceedings I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of the time and place of Mr Epsteins state court sentencing hearing I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy In addition First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel I agree that the CVRA applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations offederal crimes as opposed to the state crime We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes Acosta told OPR that he would not have sent this letter without running it by Sloman if not other individuals in the office and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafana Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role or the role of the USAO to direct the State Attorneys Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAOs initial concerns about the State Attorneys Offices handling of the Epstein case he did not believe it was appropriate to question that offices ability to fulfill whatever obligation they have and he added Lets not assume that the State Attorneys Office is full of bad actors Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing Acosta also told OPR that the state would Slomans handwrillcn notes from a December telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the defense Arc there concerns re langruage to which Lefkowitz replied The state should have their own mechanism At Ute ti.me of the Epstein mallcr under the Florida Constitution upon request victi1ns were afforded the right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of and to be present at a defendants plea and sentencing Fla Const art I Similarly pursuant to stale statute Law enforcement personnel shall ensure that victims are given infonnati.on about rthe stages in Ute criminal or juvenile justice process wh.icl are of significance to the victi.mr.J Fla Stat a Victims were also entitled lo submit an oral Of written impact statement Fla Slat Moreover in a case in which tlte victim is a minor child the guardian or family of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney in order to obtain the views of Ute icti.m or family about the disposition of any criminal or juvenile case including plea agreements Fla Stat I CA Aronberg-0686 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM have 223notified the victims that was an all-encompassing plea that that state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state court proceedings should be 223left to the state Mandelker however had no memory of advising Acosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney and she noted that the 223correspondence OPR provided to me from that time period discussing such a decision 223demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr Acosta and/or his team and that I did not provide suggest or edit the language Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that 223the victims were going to be notified at some level especially because they had restitution rights under but his expectations changed after 223there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state since it was going to be a state case to decide how the victims were going to be notified Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim list from the USAO She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard to contacting the victims In response to Acosta 2s December letter Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should not communicate with the victims and that the state not the USAO should determine who can be heard at the sentencing hearing Your letter also suggests that our objection to your Office 2s proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of state proceedings That is not true as our previous letter clearly states Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom CVRA notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney General 2s Victim Witness Guidelines status requiring physical emotional or pecuniary injury of the victim was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter they should not be informed of fictitious 223rights or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr Epstein at such proceedings as Ms Villafana repeatedly maintained they had the right to do Additionally it was and remains our position that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end We agree however with your December modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the In liis June letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip Sloman wrote 223Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised liim to make tire following proposal to defer notification to tire State Attorney 2s Office OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelkers purported involvement in the decision I I I I I CA/Aronberg-0687 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I have notified the victims that that was an all-encompassing plea that that state court sentence I would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state court proceedings should be left to the state Mandelker however had no memory of advising Acosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney and she noted that the correspondence OPR provided to me from that time period discussing such a decision demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr Acosta and/or his team and that I did not provide suggest or edit the language Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that the victims were going to be notified at some level especially because they had restitution rights under but his expectations changed after there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state since it was going to be a.state case to decide how the victims were going to be notified Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim list from the USAO She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard to contacting the victims In response to Acostas December letter Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should not communicate with the victims and that the state not the USAO should determine who can be heard at the sentencing hearing Your letter also suggests that our objection to your Offices proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state proceedings That is not true as our previous letter clearly states Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom CVRA notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as defined in the Attorney Generals Victim Witness Guidelines-a status requiring physical emotional or pecuniary injury of the victim-it was and remains our position that these women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter they should not be informed of fictitious rights or invited to make sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr Epstein at such proceedings as Ms Villafana repeatedly maintained they had the right to do Additionally it was and remains our ppsition that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the execution of the Agreement should finally come to an end We agree however with your December modification of the previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the In his June letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip Sloman wrote Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him lo make U1e following proposal to defer notificatjon to U1e State Attorneys Officcl OPR found no 0U1er documentation relating to Mandelkers purported imolvem nt in the decision I CNAronberg-0687 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is amongst many other issues properly within the aegis of state decision making.324 Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz in which Acosta asked that the defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding among other things notifications to the victims Lefkowitz responded with a December letter to Acosta objecting again to notification of the victims Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because the Attorney General Guidelines defined 223crime victim as a person harmed as a result of an offense charged in federal district court and Epstein had not been charged in federal court Nevertheless Lefkowitz added that despite their objection to CVRA notification do not object as we made clear in our letter last week that some form of notice be given to the alleged victims Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice sent by the USAO and that 223any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses should be sent by the State Attorney rather than the USAO and he agreed that the USAO 223should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those victims and the state proceedings Months later in April Epstein 2s attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that Sloman and Villafana committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a 223highly improper and unusual 221victim notification letter to all victims January June While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating Epstein As described in Chapter Two of this Report from the time the NPA was signed through the end of June the defense employed various measures to delay or avoid entirely implementation of the NPA Ultimately defense counsel 2s advocacy resulted in the USAO 2s decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh A review of the evidence was undertaken first by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then briefly by an experienced CEOS trial attorney A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and then by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein 2s entry of his state guilty plea set forth below during that time Villafana and the FBI continued investigating and working toward potential federal charges Villafana Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein Will Breach the NPA On January the local newspaper reported that Epstein 2s plea conference in state court at that point set for early January had been rescheduled to March at which time he would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and that exchange for the guilty plea The Guidelines were superseded by tire Guidelines CA/Aronberg-0688 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is aipongst many other issues properly within the aegis of state decision making Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz in which Acosta asked that the defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding among other things notifications to the victims Lefkowitz responded with a December letter to Acosta objecting again to notification of the victims Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because the Attorney General Guidelines defined crime victim as a person harmed as a result of an offense charged in federal district court and Epstein had not been charged in federal court Nevertheless Lefkowitz added that despite their objection to CVRA notification We do not object as we made clear in our letter last week that some form of notice be given to the alleged victims Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice sent by the USAO and that any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses should be sent by the State Attorney rather than the USAO and he agreed that the USAO should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those victims and the state proceedings Months later in April Epsteins attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that Sloman and Villafana committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a highly improper and unusual victim notification letter to all victims January-June While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating Epstein As described in Chapter Two of this Report from the time the NP A was signed through the end of June the defense employed various measures to delay or avoid entirely implementation of the NPA Ultimately defense counsels advocacy resulted in the USAOs decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh A review of the evidence was undertaken first by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then briefly by an experienced CEOS trial attorney A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS ChiefOosterbaan in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher and then by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General Each review took weeks and delayed Epsteins entry of his state guilty plea As set forth below during that time Villafana and the FBI continued investigating and working toward potential federal charges Villafana Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein Will Breach the NPA On January the local newspaper reported that Epsteins plfa conference in state court at that point set for early January had been rescheduled to March at which time he would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and that in exchange for the guilty plea The Guidelines were superseded by the Guidelines CA/Aronberg-0688 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM 223federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal laws Nevertheless as Epstein 2s team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NPA and with his attorneys asserting that 223the facts had gotten better for Epstein Villafana came to believe that Epstein would likely breach the In January Villafana informed her supervisors that the FBI 223had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared to file charges but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with the vast majority of the victims Villafana then proposed that the FBI 223re-establish contact with all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial Villafana told OPR that at this point 223while the case was being investigated and prepared for indictment I did not prepare or send any victim notification letters 227there simply was nothing to update I did not receive any victim calls during this time The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims On January the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification letters to victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter.328 The case agent informed Villafana in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a 223standard form FBI letter to all the remaining identified victims These letters were identical to the FBI form letters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August and October Like those previous letters most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September the letters described the case as 223currently under investigation and noted that 223this can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation The letters also stated Michele Dargan 223Jeffrey Epstein Plea Hearing Moved to March Palm Beach Daily News 223The Shiny Sheet Jan Epstein 2s attorneys used discover proceedings in the state case to depose federal victims and as they learned unflattering details or potential impeachment information concerning likely federal victims they argued for the exclusion of those victims from the federal case For example defense attorneys questioned one victim as to whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein See Exhibit to Villafana June Declaration Deposition of REDACTED State Epstein Case No at Feb One victim 2s attorney told OPR that tlie defense attorneys tried to 223smear victims by asking highly personal sexual questions about 223terminations of pregnancies sexual encounters masturbation Epstein 2s attorney used similar tactics in questioning victims who filed civil cases against their client For example the Miami Herald reported that 223One girl was asked about her abortions and her parents who were Catholic and knew nothing about the abortions were also deposed and questioned See Julie Brown 223Perversion of Justice Cops Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break Miami Herald Nov Villafana also told her supervisors that she wanted the FBI to interview two specific victims The Victim Specialist later generated an additional letter dated May After Epstein 2s June state court pleas she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States CA/Aronberg-0689 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM federal authorities are laws I I i I expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal I I Nevertheless as Epsteins team continued to argue to higher levels df the Department that there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NP A and with his attorneys asserting that the facts had gotten better for Epstein Villafana came to believe that Epstein would likely breach the NP A In January Villafana informed her supervisors that the FBI had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared to file charges but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with the vast majority of the victims Villafana then proposed that the FBI re-establish contact with all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial Villafana told OPR that at this point while the case was being investigated and prepared for indictment I did not prepare or send any victim notification letters-there simply was nothing to update I did not receive any victim calls during this time The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims On January the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification letters to victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter The case agent informed Villafana in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a standard form FBI letter to all the remaining identified victims These letters were identical to the FBI form letters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August and October Like those previous letters most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September the letters described the case as currently under investigation and noted that this can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation The letters also stated Michele Dargan Jeffrey Epstein Pica Hearing Moved to March Palm Beach Dai News The Shiny Sheet Jan Epsteins attorneys used discovery proceedings in the state case to depose federal victims and as they learned unflattering details or potential impeaclunent information concerning likely federal victims they argued for the exclusion of those victims from the federal case For example defense attorneys questioned one victim as to whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein See Exhibit to Villafana June Declaration Deposition of REDACTED State Epstein Case No at Feb One victims attorney told OPR that the defense attorneys tried to smear victims by asking highly personal se:-..ual questions about tenninations of pregnancies se:-..ual encounters masturbation Epsteins attorney used similar tactics in questioning victims who filed civil cases against their client For example the Miami Herald reported that One girl was asked about her abortions and her parents who were Catholic and knew nothing about the abortions were also deposed and questioned See Julie Brown Perversion of Justice Cops Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break Miami Herald Nov Villafana also told her supervisors that she wanted the FBI to interview two specific victims The Victim Specialist later generated an additional letter dated May After Epsteins June state court pleas she sent out substantially si1nilar notification letters to two victims who re ided outside of the United States CA/Aronberg-0689 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney 2s Office to ensure you are accorded those rights You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights The FBI case agent informed Villafana that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow up with a phone call offer assistance and ensure that the victims have received their letter A sample letter is shown on the following pages Villafana OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time they were sent to the victims or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation sometime after July Rather according to Villafana 223The decision to issue the letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions Nevertheless Villafana asserted to OPR that from her perspective the language regarding the ongoing investigation 223was absolutely true and despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities no one in my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation Villafana identified various investigative activities in which she engaged from 223September until the end of June such as collecting and reviewing evidence interviewing new victims re-interviewing victims identifying new charges developing new charging strategies drafting supplemental prosecution memoranda revising the charging package and preparing to file charges Similarly the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the 223case was never closed and the investigation was continuing The co-case agent stated that the 223the case was open it 2s never been shut down Victim Courtney Wild received one of the January FBI letters much later in the course of the CVRA litigation she stated that her 223understanding of this letter was that her case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against her CVRA petitioner Jane Doe also received a January FBI letter that was sent to her counsel i I CA/Aronberg-0690 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded th rights described Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime and it will become the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorneys Office to ensure you are accorded those rights You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights The FBI case agent informed Villafana that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow up with a phone call to offer assistance and ensure that the victims have received their letter A sample letter is shown on the following pages Villafana told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time they were sent to the victims or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation sometime after July Rather according to Villafana The decision to issue the letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions Nevertheless Villafana asserted to OPR that from her perspective the language regarding the ongoing investigation was absolutely true and despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities no one in my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation Villafana identified various investigative activities in which she engaged from September until the end of June such as collecting and reviewing evidence interviewing new victims re-interviewing victims identifying new charges developing new charging strategies drafting supplemental prosecution memoranda revising the charging package and preparing to file charges Similarly the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the case was never closed and the investigation was continuing The co-case agent stated that the the case was open its never been shut down Victim Courtney Wild received one of the January FBI letters much later in the course of the CVRA litigation she stated that her understanding of this letter was that her case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against her CVRA petitioner Jane Doe also received a January FBI letter that wa sent to her counsel CN Aronberg-0690 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I U.S Department of Justice Federal Bureau of invesjUgation FBI-WestPalm Beach Suite600 South Flagler Drive Wool Palm Beach FL Phone Fax January Re Case Num This case Is currently under Investigation Thia can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while wa conduct a thorough investigation As a crime victim you have the following rights under United States Code The right to be reasonably protected from the accused The right to reasonable accurate and timely notice ofany public court proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of ths accused The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding unless ths court after receiving clear and convincing evidence determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other tasOrnduy at II rat proceedIng Ths right fo reasonably heard at any public proceeding In lire district court involving release plea,-sentencing or any parofo proceeding The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for tho Government In the case Ths right to full and timely resfitudon as provided in law The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim 2s digplty and privacy We will make our best efforts to ensure you arc accorded the rights described Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after ihs arrest or indictment of an individual for th crtmer and It will become ths responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney Office to ensure you are accorded those rights You may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respect to these rights The Victim Notlflcellpn System VNS is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the case os It proceeds through the criminal justice system You may obtain on We Interne I at or from foe NS Call Center at Center or Internet to update your contact Information and/or change your decision about participation In the notification program If you update your Information to Include a current email address VN fifsend Information to that address You will need the following Victimidentification Number VIN Personal identification Number PIN youxanlact foe Call Center ahd th first time you log on to VNS oh the Internet In addition tha first time you access the VNS Internet site you will be promptecHoenter your last name or business name as currently contained in VNS The name you should enter CA/Aronberg-0691 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Jan1Jary R9 Case 267Numbor Dear I u.s Dopartment of Justi Fadetat Bureau of Investigation FBI West Palm Baach Suite South Flagler Drive yoi.t Palm Beach;.F,l Phone Fax This case ls urreotly underlrwilstlgalJon Thia can be a:1e 267ngttij process and We request yi:,ur contlr.ued patience hjle wa condtiot El lhoro 1gh ihveaUgation Is a crime victim you have the following rlghts under United States C-Ode The rlghl lo be reasonably protected from lhe accused The right to re sonoJ:ilo 1:10.Cl!fatl and llm0ly notice of,any ltc urt proce irig or any parole proceeding hivoMng lho crime or of my release ofascape of ha accused The right not to be exclu ted.from an s1Jch pubUo court proceedfng unless th court after Vlng cl!;!ar and oonvtnc::lng evldenC.e detarifnee that testimony by the vlctin would be materially a!tere-::1 if vlullm ea tesUn1u al ll1lit pnM:1udlny The1 right recsonatly tieard ilt ny publfo proceeding In lhe di!llrlct court invoM release plea,-sentencirig or ariy parole prooeadlng Tho reai;onabie right nfer wil_h the attorney for tho Govomment In the case The rlghtio fuli and llmaly restlludon as provided In law The tlght to procecdln9s froo from unreasonable.delay The.,ighUo be tr ated with fairness and wlih rilspec:t for the vlplfms digriltj,and privacy We ul!I make our bestafforta ensuru ar8 accorded lherl9hl d8 0rlbed Most ofthese rlgtiui perlai11 to wt:nts occurring after lhs anest or Indictment of an 1nd 1!dual for the crime and II wi be.come ihe respom,ibmty of lhe prosecuting United States Attornet Office to oosure you are a corded lhooe rights You may also eek the acv lee of a private a ttcmey with respect lo these rlghta rie Victim NotHlcetlon 225ete_m i.NS ls daslgnedfo provide you with direct information regarding the c.ase ee It proceeds through the orlminal justice system_ YolJ may 0btain cu I the Internet atWViW.NoUfy.USDOJ.GOV or lrom lh8 VNS,Call Center at I I In addnlcm you fllf.JY use_ the Gall Center or _Internet to update yQur contacrinJQrmatlon ancl/ori;:hange your decision about partlclpalfon In the notification program If you update your nformallord.o Include a currant email address VNS wnr send lnformalfon to lhal address You will need the following Vlclim 225tdenlifa:ation Nurnbar VIN nd Pemonnl ldentlflcmt!on Number PIN nytrma you:Gi.JnlaGt the Call nter and the flr time YOl.t log en to VNS oh the Internet In addition lha first tirne you access the VNS Internet site.you will be prQrnpted to enter your last name or business name as currenuy cori1al11ed In VNS The na1e you should enter Is CA Aronberg-0691 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Ifypuhayb addit pleaseroontact tftepffl Gsl dla you call please provide Ine file number locatedat tho top of tnis letter Please remember yourparticipatloii 4O 273figtinte.li ftpfihl6!progr responWlljty I Sincersfy ictlmSpacialisi Villafana the FBI and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims As Villafana resumed organizing the case for charging and trial the FBI case agent provided Villafana with a list of 223the identified victims we are planning on using in the federal charges and noted that she and her co-case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional victims.330 In Washington CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein case in order to bring expertise and national perspective to the matter.331 On January one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman by telephone stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients who were 223frustrated with the lack:of progress in the state investigation of Epstein The attorney asked Sloman if the USAO 223could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the matter but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation.332 In late January the New York Post reported that the attorney 2s clients had filed a million civil suit against Epstein in Florida and that 223Epstein is expected to be sentenced to months in prison when he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage 2prostitute Between January and 2May the FBI with the prosecutors interviewed additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was signed,334 In late January as Villafana and the CEOS Trial Attorney prepared to participate The case agent,also infonned Villafana that she expected to ask for legal process soon in order to obtain additional information The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she was under the impression that she was brought in to help prepare for the trial because the 223plea had fallen through Because Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners Sloman reported the interaction to Acosta and ic USAO reported the incident to OPR shortly thereafter OPR reviewed the matter as an inquiry and determined that no further actibn.was warranted Dareli Gregorian 223Tycoon Peeved Me at Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage 224:Neyy York Post Jan AnFBI interview report from May indicates that one victim 223believes Epstein should be prosecuted Tor Iris actions CA/Aronberg-0692 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM if.,Y VG tji,tt9J1 i 1yet9ls:frl ri P!E se tac 267tii r:iftlii fi iNliei,rj 225you cal 267ple sEi 225pfovJda ti e,numb er.f ted,st Ifie tJp or tntsl ll le.as_e rn Y,o.4r arl1c1p 247llhm fn ihe Ur1dallon p;irtol hlir program 1s:voli.1ntary I orda toioohtlm.ieJQ recelve,ilotlcatloiis if youf respbntiibllitlfo.ka 267yotir:conlact 225frlormaHaric rl nt i Villafana the FBI,and the CEOS Trial Attorney lilterview Victims As Villafana resumed organizing the case for charging and trial the FBI case agent provided V1llafafiawith a listof l9identified victims we are planning ont1singin-thefederal charges and noted that she and her cp,.c_ase J,gent wa:nted t9 further evaluate some additioriaf victims In Washington D.C CE0S assigned a Trial Attomef to the Epstein ca in order to bring expertise and".a national perspective tci the ma:tter On amJ.ary one a_ttomey representing c1 victim anci her famil contact Sloman by telephone stating thath 267plan11ed to.file dvil litigation against.Epstein_ on behaif of bis ciients whowere frustrated with the lackofprogress in the state investigation of Epstein Jhe attorney asked Sloman:ifthe USAO could file criminal.charges even though the state was looking into the matter but Sloman declined to answer his questions cciriceming the investigation.332 In late Jam1ary theNew fork Post reported that the attomeys clients had filed a SO million civil suit against Epstt::in in Flo.iidc1 ancl tbat EP.stein is:expect ci to bi:n,entence_d Jq months in prison when he 267pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage.prostitute Between January andMay the FBI with the prosecutors interviewed additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NP A was igned In late January as ViHafafia and the CE0S Trial Attom prepar to participate The case agent also infonned Villafana tliat she exl ecfed to ask for legal process soon in.order to obtain additional information TheCEQS Trial A:itpmey told OPR tl 1t.sht yas under theimpr"ssion thatshe wasbrought in lo h"lp prepare for the tri ll bec;i th plt;a hadfl.len through Beqiuse lq1i1an and tht at or:11ey vere fqnnerl gaJ practic.e partners SloJnan i:t;pqi;tecl the intt;raclion_ tq Acosta and llie USAO reported the _i11cid nt to QPR shortly thereafter OPR rch Wcd ll1c 1attcr as an inquiry and deten1ned that no further action.,vaswarrantedi Darell Gregorian Tycoon Perved Me at SOM Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage Ne11 York Rost fan An FBI interview report from May indicates that one victim believes Epstein should prosecuted for his actions CA Aronberg-0692 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM in FBI interviews of Wild and other victims Villafana informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she anticipated the victims 223would be concerned about the status of the case On January Villafana the CEOS Trial Attorney and the FBI interviewed three victims including Wild Prior to the interview Wild had received the FBI 2s January letter stating that the case was under investigation however according to the case agent Wild and two other victims had also been told by the FBI in October that the case had been resolved In her CVRA-case declaration Wild stated that after receiving the FBI letter she believed that the FBI was investigating the case and she was not told 223about any NPA or any potential resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in If I had been told of an NPA I would have objected In Villafana 2s declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana recalled interviewing Wild on January along with FBI agents and Villafana told OPR she 223asked Wild whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial Villafana recalled Wild responding that she 223hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify After the first three victim interviews on January Villafana described for Acosta and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview The second girl was very upset about the month deal she had read about in the paper.336 She said that months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail.337 Villafana closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims scheduled for the following day but neither did Acosta told OPR that it 223wasn 2t typical The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion of Wild 2s intentions See Dareh Gregorian 223Tycoon Perved Me at Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage New York Post Jan As early as October the New York Post reported the 18-month sentence and that 223the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge Dan Mangan 223Unhappy Ending Plea Deal Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages New York Post Oct Acosta told OPR 223The United States can 2t unwind an agreement just because some victim indicates that they don 2t like it The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled tliat she did not 223tliink tliat any one of these girls was interested in this prosecution going forward Furthermore as previously noted the CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that 223the victims would liave testified for us but the case would have required an extensive amount of 223victim management as the girls were 223deeply embarrassed tliat they 223were going to be called prostitutes OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February victim interview Although Villafana 2s emails indicated tliat two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February OPR located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews OPR located undated handwritten notes Villafana CA/Aronberg-0693 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I in FBI interviews of Wild and other victims Villafana informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she anticipated the victims would be concerned about the status of the case On January Villafana the CEOS Trial Attorney and the FBI interviewed three victims including Wild Prior to the interview Wild had received the FBIs January letter stating that the case was under investigation however according to the case agent Wild and two other victims had also been told by the FBI in October that the case had been resolved In her CVRA-case declaration Wild stated that after receiving the FBI letter she believed that the FBI was investigating the case and she was not told about any NP A or any potential resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in If I had been told of an NPA I would have objected In Villafanas declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana recalled interviewing Wild on January along with FBI agents and Villafana told OPR she asked Wild whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial Villafana recalled Wild responding that she hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to testify After the first three victim interviews on January Villafana described for Acosta and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview twice she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the interview The second girl was very upset about the month deal she had read about in the paper She said that months was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get restitution but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time in jail Villafana closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims scheduled for the following day but neither did so Acosta told OPR that it wasnt typical The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion of Wild intentions See Dareh Gregorian Tycoon Perved Me at Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage New York Post Jan As early as October the New York Post reported the 18-month sentence and that the feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to tl1e new state charge Dan Mangan Unhappy Ending Plea Deal Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages New York Post Oct Acosta told OPR The United States cant unwind an agreement just because some victim indicates that they dont like it The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled that she did not think that any one of these girls was interested in this prosecution going forward Furthennore as previously noted tl1e CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that the victims would have testified for us but the case would have required an extensive amount of victim management as the girls were deeply embarrassed tl1at they were going to be called prostitutes OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February victim interview Although Villafafias emails indicated tl1at two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February OPR located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews OPR located undated l1andwritten notes Villafana CA/Aronberg-0693 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM for him as U.S Attorney to attend witness interviews and further that no one in the USAO 223was questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims Sloman told OPR that he himself had 223never gone to a line assistant 2s victim or witness interview I Villafana told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had been notified by the FBI in October about the resolution of the case at this point Villafana did not specifically tell these victims that 223there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms Villafana also told OPR she 223didn 2t talk about money because she 223didn 2t want there to be an allegation at the time of trial that the victims were either exaggerating their claims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount Rather according to Villafana she told the three victims that agreement had been reached where Epstein was going to be entering a guilty plea but it doesn 2t look like he intends to actually perform and now it looks like this may have to be charged and may have to go to trial Villafana recalled 223explaining that the case was under investigation that they 223were preparing the case for charging again and 223expressing our hope that charges would be brought Villafana recalled one victim 223making a comment about the amount of imprisonment time and why was it so low and Villafana answered 223that was the agreement that the office had reached With regard to the victims Villafana interviewed who had not received an FBI notification in October Villafana recalled discussing one victim 2s safety concerns but not whether they discussed the agreement She recalled telling another victim that thought we had reached an agreement with Epstein and then we didn 2t but was 223pretty sure that she not mention the agreement during the interview of the third victim Villafana explained that she likely did not discuss the agreement because at that point Ijust felt like it was nonexistent The victim didn 2t know anything about it beforehand and as far as I could tell it was going to end up being thrown on the heap and I didn 2t want to if you tell people oh look he 2s already admitted that he 2s guilty like I didn 2t want that to color her statement Ijust wanted to get the facts of the case The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussion with the victims about the NPA or the status of the case.340 She did remember explaining the significance of the prosecution to one victim 223did not think anything should happen to Epstein The FBI case agent told OPR that she not recall the January interviews OPR located notes to an FBI interview report stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted Attorneys for the two victims other than Wild who had been notified by the FBI in October about the resolution of the case informed OPR that as of their clients had no memory of meeting with authored concerning one of the two victims that contained no information regarding a discussion of the status of the investigation or the resolution of the case Through her attorney tills victim told OPR that she did not recall having contact with anyone from the USAO i Villafafia did not recall any other specific questions from victims i The CEOS Trial Attorney noted that CEOS did not issue victim notifications rather such notifications were generally handled by a Victim Witness Specialist in the assigned USAO CA/Aronberg-0694 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i I I for him as U.S Attorney to attend witness interviews and further that no qne in the USAO was questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims Sloman told OPR that he himself had never gone to a line assistants victim or witness interview Villafana told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had been notified by the FBI in October about the resolution of the case at this point Villafana did not specifically tell these victims that there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms Villafana also told OPR she didnt talk about money because she didnt want there to be an allegation at the time of trial that the victims were either exaggerating their claims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount Rather according to Villafana she told the three victims that an agreement had been reached where Epstein was going to be entering a guilty plea but it doesnt look like he intends to actually perform and now it looks like this may have to be charged and may have to go to trial Villafana recalled explaining that the case was under investigation that they were preparing the case for charging again and expressing our hope that charges would be brought Villafana recalled one victim making a comment about the amount of imprisonment time and why was it so low and Villafana answered that was the agreement that the office had reached With regard to the victims Villafana interviewed who had not received an FBI notification in October Villafana recalled discussing one victims safety concerns but not whether they discussed the agreement She recalled telling another victim that we thought we had reached an agreement with Epstein and then we didnt but was pretty sure that she did not mention the agreement during the interview of the third victim Villafana explained that she likely did not discuss the agreement because at that point I just felt like it was nonexistent The victim didnt know anything about it beforehand and as far as I could tell it was going to end up being thrown on the heap and I didnt want to if you tell people oh look hes already admitted that hes guilty like I didnt want that to color her statement I just wanted to get the facts of the case The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussion with the victims about the NP A or the status of the case She did remember explaining the significance of the prosecution to one victim who did not think anything should happen to Epstein The FBI case agent told OPR that she did not recall the January interviews OPR located notes to an FBI interview report stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted Attorneys for the two victims other than Wild who had been notified by the FBI in October about the resolution of the case informed OPR that as of their clients had no memory of meeting with authored concerning one of the two victims that contained no infonnation regarding a disc:ussion of the status of the investigation or the resolution of the case Through her attorney this victim told OPR that she did not recall having contact with anyone from the USAO Villafafla did not recall any other specific questions from victims The CEOS Trial Attorney noted that CEOS did not issue victim notifications rath such notifications were generally handled by a Victim Witness Specialist in the assigned USAO CA/Aronberg-0694 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein 2s guilty plea until after the plea was entered on June When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims Villafana told OPR From my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it was an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment You know I was interviewing witnesses I was issuing legal process I was doing all these things to take the case to a federal indictment and a federal trial So to me saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate February March Villafana Takes Additional Steps to Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for Victims and Cautions about Continued Delay In February Villafana revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental memorandum Villafana removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein added newly discovered victims and made changes to the proposed indictment While the defense appealed the USAO 2s decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of the Department Villafana sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein 2s defense in civil lawsuits that some victims had brought against him as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case Villafana reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a 223national crime victims service organization to provide attorneys for the victims and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some victims to provide contact information for the attorneys.341 During this period an attorney from the victims service organization was able to help Courtney Wild avoid an improper deposition Villafana also informed her supervisors including Sloman that 223one of the victims tried to commit suicide last week and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case just can 2t stress enough how important it is for these girls to have a resolution in this case The 221please be patient answer is really wearing thin especially when Epstein 2s group is still on the attack while we are forced to wait on the sidelines March-April Villafana Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal Charges Villafana continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and by removing others who had filed civil suits against Epstein Villafana also prepared search warrants for digital The FBI Victim Specialist informed Villafana that she spoke 223directly to seven victims and informed them of the pro bono counsel and explained tliat her 223job as a Victim Specialist is to ensure that victims of a Federal crime are afforded their rights information and resource referral CA/Aronberg-0695 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epsteins guilty plea until after the I plea was entered on June When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims Villafana told OPR From my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it was an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment You know I was interviewing witnesses I was issuing legal process I was doing all these things to take the case to a federal indictment and a federal trial So to me saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate February March Villafana Takes Additional Steps to Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for Victims and Cautions about Continued Delay In February Villafana revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental memorandum Villafana removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein added newly discovered victims and made changes to the proposed indictment While the defense appealed the USAOs decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of the Department Villafana sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epsteins defense in civil lawsuits that some victims had brought against him as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case Villafana reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a national crime victims service organization to provide attorneys for the victims and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some victims to provide contact information for the attorneys During this period an attorney from the victims service organization was able to help Courtney Wild avoid an improper deposition Villafana also informed her supervisors including Sloman that one of the victims tried to commit suicide last week and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case I just cant stress enough how important it is for these girls to have a resolution in this case The please be patient answer is really wearing thin especially when Epsteins group is still on the attack while we are forced to wait on the sidelines March April Villafana Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal Charges Villafana continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and by removing others who had filed ci vii suits against Epstein Villafana also prepared search warrants for digital The FBI Victim Specialist infonned Villafafia that she spoke directly to seven victims and informed them of tl1e pro bona counsel and explained that her job as a Victim Specialist is to ensure that ictimsfl of a Federal crime are afforded their rights infonnation and resource referral CNAronberg-0695 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically images that could contain child pornography.342 examined for deleted By early April as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department 2s Criminal Division Acosta predicted in an email to Villafana and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein were 223more and more likely Villafana asked Oosterbaan for help to 223move this Criminal Division review process along noting that the defense continued to undermine the government 2s case by deposing the victims 223under the guise of 221trial prep for the state case and that the 223agents and the victims were 223losing their patience On April Villafana emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior asking whether she had the 223green light to file charges and raising the same concerns she had expressed to Oosterbaan Villafana further cautioned that although she was planning to file charges on May if that was not going to happen 223then we all need to meet with the victims the agents and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay Because the Department 2s Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein 2s appeal by May however Villafana did not file charges that day I USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION During the period after the NPA was signed and before Epstein complied with the NPA by entering his state guilty pleas the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Department 2s position that CVRA 2s victims rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary The contemporaneous communications confirm that in Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department 2s policy regarding the issue Unrelated to the Epstein investigation on April Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him absolute right to meet with USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief who informed Acosta and Sloman that according to the Guidelines 223our obligations under the CVRA are not triggered until charges are filed On April the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman stating that she had 223confirmed with DOJ that her reading of the Guidelines is correct and that our obligations under the CVRA are not triggered until a case is filed On May the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day In re Dean holding that a victim 2s The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that prior to the initiation of charges the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department 2s statutory obligations to the victim CA/Aron FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted images that could contain child pornography i By early April as the defense pursued its appeal to the Departments Criminal Division Acosta predicted in an email to Villafana and Sloman that federal cnarges against Epstein were more and more likely Villafana asked Oosterbaan for help to move this Criminal Division review process along noting that the defense continued to undermine the governments case by deposing the victims under the guise of trial prep for the state case and that the agents and the victims were losing their patience On April Villafana emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior asking whether she had the green light to file charges and raising the same concerns she had expressed to Oosterbaan Villafana further cautioned that although she was planning to file charges on May if that was not going to happen then we all need to meet with the victims the agents and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay Because the Departments Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epsteins appeal by May however Villafana did not file charges that day VI USAO SUPERVISORS CONSlDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS lN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION During the period after the NP A was signed and before Epstein complied with the NP A by entering his state guilty pleas the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Departments position that CVRAs victims rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary The contemporaneous communications confirm that in Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Departments policy regarding the issue Unrelated to the Epstein investigation on April Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him an absolute right to meet with USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief who informed Acosta and Sloman that according to the Guidelines our obligations under the CVRA are not triggered until charges are filed On April the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman stating that she had confirmed with DOJ that her reading of the Guidelines is correct and that our obligations under the CVRA are not triggered until a case is filed On May the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day re Dean holding that a victims The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards i I The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could infonn the co1nplainant that prior to the initiation of charges the investigating agency was responsible for canying out the Departn ents statutory obligations to the victim CA Aron FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.344 The Appellatej Division Chief noted that although the holding conflicted with the Guidelines the 223court 2s opinion makes sense Dean involved a federal prosecution arising from a explosion at an oil refinery operated by BP Products North America Inc BP that killed people and injured more than Before bringing criminal charges the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without notifying the victims The government filed a sealed motion alerting the district court to the potential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such notification result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations The court then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea agreement until after it had been signed by the parties Thereafter the government filed a criminal information the government and BP signed the plea agreement and the government mailed notices of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard One month later victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights under the CVRA The district court denied their motion but concluded that the CVRA rights to confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim 2s dignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges.345 The district court noted that the legislative history reflected a view that 223the right to confer was intended to be broad as well as being a 223mechanism to ensure that victims were treated with fairness In denying the victims relief the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court 223failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA In particular the Fifth Circuit cited the district court 2s acknowledgement that 223there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation was not infringement on the government 2s independent prosecutorial discretion but is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion In the wake of the Dean opinion two Department components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with opposing views concerning whether the CVRA right to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution IX JUNE VILLAFANA 2S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA I CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges The.AppellatelDivision Chief noted that although the holding conflicted with the Guidelines the courts dpinion makes sense I Dean involved a federal prosecution arising from a explosion at an oil refinery operated by BP Products North America Inc BP that killed people and injured more than Before bringing criminal charges the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without notifying the victims The government filed a sealed motion alerting the district court to the potential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such notification could result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations The court then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea agreement until after it had been signed by the parties Thereafter the government filed a criminal information the government and BP signed the plea agreement and the government mailed notices of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard One month later victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights under the CVRA The district court denied their motion but concluded that the CVRA rights to confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victims dignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges The district court noted that the legislative history reflected a view that the right to confer was intended to be broad as well as being a mechanism to ensure that victims were treated with fairness In denying the victims relief the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA In particular the Fifth Circuit cited the district courts acknowledgement that there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation was not an infringement on the governments independent prosecutorial discretion but it is only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before ultimately exercising its broad discretion In the wake of the Dean opinion two Department components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with opposing views concerning whether the CVRA right to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution IX JUNE VILLAFANAS PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA an instance in which Wild 223asked a question that wasn 2t answered of anyone in the USAO or of the FBI case agents Edwards contacted Villafana by email and telephone in mid-June stating that he had 223information and concerns that he would like to share In his affidavit,Edwards alleged that during multiple telephone calls with Villafana he 223asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in and Villafana replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter 223was an on-going active investigation Edwards attested that Villafana gave him 223the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going very expansive and continuously growing both in the number of identified victims and in complexity In her written response to OPR Villafana said that she 223listened more than she spoke during these interactions with Edwards which occurred before the state court plea Given the uncertainty of the situation Epstein was still challenging our ability to prosecute him federally pressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and trying to negotiate better plea terms while the agents my supervisors and I were all moving towards filing charges did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case It is also my practice not to talk about status before the grand jury In her declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana explained that during these exchanges Villafana did not inform Edwards of the existence of the NPA because she 223did not know whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court guilty plea that would trigger the NPA Villafana told OPR that she did not inform Edwards also had interactions with other victims attorneys For example another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to Villafana two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under investigation The attorney noted never got any information out of Villafana We were never told what was happening or going on to any extent Villafana 2s counsel told OPR that Villafana did not have any interaction with tire attorney or his law partner until after Epstein 2s state court plea hearing and that in her written conununications responding to the attorney 2s inquiries she provided information to the extent possible OPR found no documentation that Villafana 2s communications with the attorney occurred prior to June Villafana also had more ministerial interactions with other victims counsel as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases For example in March one victim 2s attorney informed Villafana of his representation of a victim and requested that the government provide him with photographs of the victim and information concerning the tail registration number for Epstein 2s airplane Villafana responded that she was unable to provide the requested information but asked that counsel keep her updated about the civil litigation Villafana later stated in a July declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that although she invited Edwards to provide her with information 223njothing was provided Edwards did not respond to OPR 2s request to interview him although he did assist OPR in locating oilier attorneys who were representing victims The government later admitted in court filings that Villafana and Edwards 223discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in the future and that the NPA was not mentioned Doe Government 2s Response to Petitioners Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners Motion for partial Summary Judgment at June CA/Aronberg-0698 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM an instance in which Wild asked a question that wasnt answered of anyone in the USAO or of the FBI case agents Edwards contacted Villafana by email and telephone in mid-June stating that he had information and concerns that he would like to share In his affidavit,1 Edwards alleged that during multiple telephone calls with Villafana he asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in and Villafana replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter was an on-going active investigation Edwards attested that Villafana gave him the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going very expansive and con ti nuousl growing both in the number of identified victims and in complexity In her written response to OPR Villafana said that she listened more than she spoke during these interactions with Edwards which occurred before the state court plea Given the uncertainty of the situation Epstein was still challenging our ability to prosecute him federally pressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and trying to negotiate better plea terms while the agents my supervisors and I were all moving towards filing charges I did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case It is also my practice not to talk about status before the grand jury In her declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana explained that during these exchanges Villafana did not inform Edwards of the existence of the NP A because she did not know whether the NP A remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court guilty plea that would trigger the NPA Villafana told OPR that she did not inform Edwards also had interactions with other victims attorneys For example another attorney infonned OPR that he spoke to Villafafia two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under investigation The attorney noted Wc never got any infonnation out of Villafana We were never told what was happening or going on to any extent Villafaiias counsel told OPR that Villafana did not have any interaction with the attorney or his law partner until after Epsteins state court pica hearing and that in her writlcn communications responding to the attorneys inquiries she provided information to the extent possible OPR found no documentation that Villafaii.as communications with the attorney occurred prior to June Villafafia also had more ministerial interactions with other victims counsel as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases For example in March one victims attorney infonned Villafana of his representation of a victim and requested that the goverrunent provide him with photo rrdphs of the victim and infonnation concerning the tail registration number for Epsteins airplane Villafana responded that she was unable to provide the requested infonnation but asked that counsel keep her updated about the civil litigation Villafana later stated in a July declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that although she invited Edwards to provide her with infonnation nothing was provided Edwards did not respond to OPRs request to interview him although he did assist OPR in locating otl1er attorneys who were representing victims The goverrunent later admitted in conrt filings that Villafafia and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed in tl1e future and tl1at tl1e NP A was not mentioned Doe Goverrunents Response to Petitioners Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners Motion for Piartial Summary Judgment atl4,il0l CA/Aronberg-0698 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM about the NPA because it was 223confidential and because the case was under 223investigation and leading towards the filing of charges Villafana recalled mentioning the conversation to her supervisors and the case agents because she 223thought he was somebody who could be of assistance to us and could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was meritorious and should be prosecuted Nevertheless when OPR asked Villafana why she did not inform Edwards of the same information that the FBI and she had provided to Wild in October and January Villafana explained that felt 223prohibited At the time that spoke with him you know there had been all of this letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that had been given by Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him about the existence of the NPA JUNE EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE PLEA HEARING The Epstein team 2s appeals through the Department ended on June when the Deputy Attorney General determined that 223federal prosecution of this case is appropriate and Epstein 2s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such a decision Immediately thereafter at Sloman 2s instruction Villafana notified Lefkowitz that Epstein had until 223the close of business on Monday June to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement including entry of a guilty plea sentencing and surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment That same day Villafana made plans to file charges on July if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June deadline On Friday June Villafana received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for a on Monday June Also on that Friday Villafana submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior a 223final final proposed federal indictment of Epstein Villafana and the FBI finalized the government 2s victim list that they intended to disclose for purposes to Epstein after the plea and at Sloman 2s instruction Villafana contacted PBPD Chief Reiter to ask him to notify the victims of the plea hearing Villafana told OPR that Sloman said 223Chief Reiter could contact the victims from state case and tell them about the plea On Saturday June Villafana emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter going to notify victims about the plea Villafana further stated requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist Sloman replied 223Good CA/Aronberg-0699 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM about the NP A because it was confidential and because the case was under investigation and leading towards the filing of charges Villafana recalled mentioning thy conversation to her supervisors and the case agents because she thought he was somebody who could be of assistance I to us and could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was mentonous and should be prosecuted Nevertheless when OPR asked Villafana why she did not inform Edwards of the same information that the FBI and she had provided to Wild in October and January Villafana explained that she felt prohibited At the time that I spoke with him you know there had been all of this letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him about the existence of the NPA JUNE EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE PLEA HEARING The Epstein teams appeals through the Department ended on June when the Deputy Attorney General determined that federal prosecution of this case is appropriate and Epsteins allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undennine such a decision Immediately thereafter at Slomans instruction Villafana notified Lefkowitz that Epstein had until the close of business on Monday June to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement including entry of a guilty plea sentencing and surrendering to begin his sentence of imprisonment That same day Villafana made plans to file charges on July I if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June deadline On Friday June Villafana received a copy of the proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for a.m on Monday June Also on that Friday Villafana submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior a final final proposed federal indictment of Epstein Villafana and the FBI finalized the governments victim list that they intended to disclose for purposes to Epstein after the plea and at Slomans instruction Villafana contacted PBPD Chief Reiter to ask him to notify the victims of the plea hearing Villafana told OPR that Sloman said Chief Reiter could contact the victims from the state case and tell them about the plea On Saturday June Villafana emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter is going to notify victims about the plea Villafana further stated I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea but the Office decided that victim notification could only com from a state investigator and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist Sloman replied Good CA Aronberg-0699 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Villafana told OPR that before the state plea hearing she sent Reiter a list of the victims including their telephone numbers to notify and asked him to destroy the list Villafana recalled that Reiter told her that he would 223try to contact as many as he could and that he would destroy the list afterwards Villafana not recall being 223asked to provide a list of all our victims to the State Attorney 2s Office In his deposition Reiter stated that Villafana sent him a letter 223around the time of sentencing listing the victims in the federal investigation and that she asked him to destroy the letter after he reviewed it Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the state grand jury 2s indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had identified and he 223wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our victims In her declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that she and the PBPD 223attempted to notify the victims about the June hearing in the short time available to us In her declaration however Villafana conceded that 223all known victims were not notified Villafana told OPR that Edwards was the only victim attorney she was authorized to contact 227she thought probably by Sloman 227about the June plea hearing because Edwards 223had expressed a specific interest in the outcome Villafana recalled was told that I could inform Edwards of the plea date but I still couldn 2t inform him of the NPA In her declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that she called Edwards and informed him of the plea hearing scheduled for Monday Villafana stated that Edwards told her that he could not attend the hearing but 223someone would be present In a later filing in the CVRA litigation however Edwards asserted that Villafana told him only that 223Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims 227not Mr Edwards clients nor any of the victims Edwards further claimed that because Villafana failed to inform him that the 223guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement his clients did not attend the hearing Villafana told OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow Edwards and his clients the ability to comment on the resolution Reiter showed the letter to the lead Detective so he could 223confinn that all of the victims that we had for the state case were included on that The Detective 223looked at it and he said they 2re all there and then Reiter destroyed it The Detective recalled viewing the list in Reiter 2s office but he could not recall when Reiter showed it to him The FBI co-case agent told OPR that don 2t think the FBI reached out to anyone Villafana told OPR tliat she thought tliat it was Sloman who gave her the instructions but she could not 223remember the specifics of the conversation Villafana stated tliat she 223never told Attorney Edwards tliat the state charges involved 221other victims and neither the state court cliarging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim Although Edwards criticized Villafaiia 2s conduct in liis CVRA filings in his recently published book Edwards described Villafana as a 223kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right noting tliat she 223believfed in the victims and trfied to bring down Jeffrey Epstein Bradley Edwards with Brittany Henderson Relentless Pursuit at Gallery Books CA/Aronberg-0700 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I Villafana told OPR that before the state plea hearing she sent Reiter a list of the victims including their telephone numbers to notify and asked him to destroy the list Villafana recalled that Reiter told her that he would try to contact as many as he could and that he would destroy the list afterwards Villafana did not recall being asked to provide a list of all our victims to the State Attorneys Office In his deposition Reiter stated that Villafana sent him a letter around the time of sentencing listing the victims in the federal investigation and that she asked him to destroy the letter after he reviewed it Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the state grand jurys indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had identified and he wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our victims In her declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that she and the PBPD attempted to notify the victims about the June hearing in the short time available to us In her declaration however Villafana conceded that all known victims were not notified Villafana told OPR that Edwards was the only victim attorney she was authorized to contact-she thought probably by Sloman-about the June plea hearing because Edwards had expressed a specific interest in the outcome Villafana recalled I was told that I could inform Edwards of the plea date but I still couldnt inform him of the NP A In her declaration in the CVRA litigation Villafana stated that she called Edwards and informed him of the plea hearing scheduled for Monday Villafana stated that Edwards told her that he could not attend the hearing but someone would be present In a later filing in the CVRA litigation however Edwards asserted that Villafana told him only that Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims-not Mr Edwards clients nor any of the federally-identified victims Edwards further claimed that because Villafana failed to inform him that the guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement his clients did not attend the hearing Villafana told OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow Edwards and his clients the ability to comment on the resolution Reiter showed the letter to the lead Detective so he could confinn that all of the victims that we had for the state case were included on that The Detective looked at it and he said theyre all there and then Reiter destroyed it The Detective recalled viewing the list in Reiters office but he could not recall when Reiter showed it to him The FBI co-case agent told OPR that I dont think the FBI reached out to anyone Villafana told OPR that she thought that it was Sloman who gave her the instructions but she could not remember the specifics of the conversatio1t Villafafia stated that she never told Attorney Edwards tJiat tJ1e state cliarges invplved other victims and neither the slate court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited tJ1e procurement of prostitution charge lo a specific victim Allhough Edwards criticized Villafaiias conduct in his CVRA filings in his recently published book Edwards described Villafafia as a kindhearted prosecutor who tried lo do right no ling tl she believf edl in the victims and trfiedl lo bring down Jeffrey Epstein Bradley Edwards with Brittany Henderson Relentless Pursuit at Gallery Books CA/Aronberg-0700 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I My expectation of what was going to happen at the plea was that it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer that was read and where the judge would ask if there were any victims present who wanted to be heard and that at that point if Brad Edwards wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to address the court they would be given the opportunity to do Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafana to contact anyone about the plea hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it Acosta OPR that he believed the state would notify the victims of the 223all-encompassing plea resolving the federal case 223and the victims would have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing Nevertheless Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims or whether the USAO 223shared that list with them Villafana told OPR that she and Acosta 223understood that the state would notify state victims but that neither of them were aware 223that the state only believed they one victim Villafana told OPR that there was 223very little communication between the USAO and the State Attorney 2s Office and although she discussed a factual proffer with the State Attorney 2s Office and 223the fact that the federal investigation had identified additional victims she did not recall discussing 223who the specific people were that they considered victims in the state case Sloman told OPR that the 223public perception that we tried to hide the fact of the results of this resolution from the victims was incorrect He explained Even though we didn 2t have a legal obligation I felt that the victims were going to be notified and the state was going to fulfill that obligation and even as another failsafe the victims would be notified of the restitution mechanism that we had set up on their behalf Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims it was of concern that this was going to break down and result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating hey you 2re going to get that 2s going to be instant impeachment for the defense Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings Rather such a presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney 2s Office and additional investigation of the victims allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney 2s Office In an email a few months earlier Villafana noted 223The state indicUnent for solicitation of adult prostitution is related to two girls One of those girls is included in the federal charging document the other is not As noted in Chapter Two Villafana had stopped communicating with the State Attorney 2s Office regarding the state case following Epstein 2s defense team 2s objections to those communications CA/Aronberg-0701 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I i I I My expectation of what was going to happen at the plea as that it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer that was read and where the judge would ask if there we,re any victims present who wanted to be heard and that at that point if Brad Edwards wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to address the court they would be given the opportunity to do so Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafana to contact anyone about the plea hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it Acosta told OPR that he believed the state would notify the victims of the all-encompassing plea resolving the federal case and the victims would have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing Nevertheless Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims or whether the USAO shared that list with them Villafana told OPR that she and Acosta understood that the state would notify the state victims but that neither oft.hem were aware that the state only believed they had one victim Villafana told OPR that there was very little communication between the USAO and the State Attorneys Office and although she discussed a factual proffer with the State Attorneys Office and the fact that the federal investigation had identified additional victims she did not recall discussing who the specific people were that they considered victims in the state case Sloman told OPR that the public perception that we tried to hide the fact of the results of this resolution from the victims was incorrect He explained Even though we didnt have a legal obligation I felt that the victims were going to be notified and the state was going to fulfill that obligation and even as another failsafe the victims would be notified of the restitution mechanism that we had set up on their behalf Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NP A terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO from exercising its discretion to notify the victims it was of concern that this was going to break down and result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating hey youre going to get thats going to be instant impeachment for the defense Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings Rather such a presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorneys Office and additional investigation of the victims allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorneys Office In an email a few months earlier Villafana noted The state indictment rror solicitation of adult prostitution is related to two girls One of those girls is included in the federal rcharging document the other is not As noted in Chapter Two Villafana had stopped conununicating with the State Attorneys Office regarding the state case following Epsteins defense teams objections to those conununications CA/Aronberg-0701 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing Sloman responded that he 223was more focused on the restitution provisions I didn 2t get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up at the change of plea Also in late June Villafana drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June plea.360 Villafana told OPR that because Acosta had agreed in December that we would not provide written notice of the state change of plea the written victim notifications were prepared to be sent immediately following Epstein 2s guilty plea As she did with prior draft victim notification letters Villafana provided the draft to the defense for comments.362 Although Epstein 2s plea hearing was set for June Villafana took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July in the event he not plead guilty in state court OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorney 2s Office made available online but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing date the state informed victims of the June plea On March the State Attorney 2s Office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding the individuals to 223remain on call during the week of July However the Palm Beach County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was 223away at college I JUNE EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT On June Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach with his attorney Jack Goldberger and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under for prostitution as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution The information charged that between August and October Epstein 223did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution or caused to be prostituted REDACTED a person under the age of years and referred to no other victims The indictment did not identify any victims and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August and October Although the charges not indicate whether they applied to multiple victims during the hearing Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed the court that 223there 2s several victims When the court asked Belohlavek whether 223the victims in both these cases were in agreement with the terms of this plea Belohlavek replied have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel through counsel as to the other victim and I believe Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta who responded with his own edited version stating 223What do you tliink Villafana edited it further The letter began with the statement June Jeffrey Epstein entered a plea of guilty A week after Epstein 2s state guilty plea Villafana notified Acosta Sloman and other supervisors that 223Epstein 2s local attorneyl Jack Goldberger is back in town today so I am hoping that we will finalize the last piece of our agreement the victim list and Notification If I face resistance on that front I will let you know i According to Villafana either Acosta or Sloman made the decision to send the notifications following the state plea and to share the draft notification letters with the defense i CA/Aronberg-0702 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the ch nge of plea hearing Sloman responded that he was more focused on the restitution provisions I didnt get the sense that the victims were overly interested in showing up at the change of plea Also in late June Villafana drafted a victim notification letter cohcerning the June plea Villafana told OPR that because Mr Acosta had agreed in December that we would not provide written notice of the state change of plea the written victim notifications were prepared to be sent immediately following Epsteins guilty plea As she did with prior draft victim notification letters Villafana provided the draft to the defense for comments Although Epsteins plea hearing was set for June Villafana took steps to facilitate the filing offederal charges on July in the event he did not plead guilty in state court OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorneys Office made available online but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing date the state informed victims of the June plea On March the State Attorneys Office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding the individuals to remain on call during the week of July However the Palm Beach County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was away at college XI JUNE EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT Will CH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT On June Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach with his attorney Jack Goldberger and pied guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under for prostitution as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution The information charged that between August and October Epstein did knowingly and unlawfully procure for prostitution or caused to be prostituted REDACTED a person under the age of years and referred to no other victims The indictment did not identify any victims and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August and October Although the charges did not indicate whether they applied to multiple victims during the hearing Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed the court that theres several victims When the court asked Belohlavek whether the victims in both these cases were in agreement with the terms of this plea Belohlavek replied I have spoken to several myself and I have spoken to counsel through counsel as to the other victim and I believe Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta who responded with his own edited version stating What do you think Villafana edited it further The letter began with the statement On June Jeffrey Epstein entered a plea of guilty A week after Epsteins state guilty plea Villafana notified Acosta Sloman and other supervisors that Epsteins local attorneyl Jack Goldberger is back in town today so I am hoping that we will finalize the las piece of our agreement the victim list and Notification If I face resistance on that front I will let you know According to Villafana either Acosta or Sloman made the decision to send the notifications following the state pica and to share the draft otification letters with the defense CA/Aronberg-0702 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM yes The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim 2s parents or guardian agreed with the plea and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age18 Belohlavek spoke with the victim 2s counsel who agreed with the plea agreement.363 Both Villafana and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the plea hearing Later that day Villafana met with Goldberger and gave him the list of individuals the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the provision applied In her CVRA case declaration Wild stated that did not have any reason to attend that hearing because no one had told me that this guilty plea was related to the FBI 2s investigation of Epstein 2s abuse of me She stated that she 223would have attended and tried to object to the judge and prevent that plea from going forward had she known that the state plea 223had some connection to blocking the prosecution of my case Similarly CVRA petitioner Jane Doe stated that one notified me that Epstein 2s plea had anything to do with my case against him An attorney who represented several victims including one whom the state had subpoenaed for the potential July trial told OPR that he was present in court on June in order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of one of his clients The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing.364 Moreover the attorney informed OPR that although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in the PBPD 2s investigation and had been deposed by Epstein 2s attorneys in the state case with the Assistant State Attorney present he did not recall receiving any notice of the June plea hearing from the State Attorney 2s Office.365 Similarly another of the victims state had subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the State Attorney 2s Office but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution may not have 223technically been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but rather witnesses On July the State Attorney 2s Office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June although the plea occurred on June and listed Epstein 2s sentence The letters did not mention the NPA or the federal investigation XII SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS A Immediately After Epstein 2s State Guilty Pleas Villafana Notifies Some Victims Attorneys Villafana 2s contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epstein 2s June guilty pleas she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims in Villafana who was present in court and heard Belohlavek 2s representation told OPR that she had no information as to whether or how the state had notified the victims about the plea hearing Villafafla did contact this attorney 2s law partner later that day When interviewed by OPR in tliis same attorney indicated that he was surprised to learn that despite the fact tliat his client was a minor at the time Epstein victimized her she was not the minor victim that the slate identified in the information charging Epstein I i CA/Aronberg-0703 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I yes The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victims parents or gutdian agreed with the plea and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age Belohlavek spoke with the victims counsel who agreed with the plea agreement i Both Villafana and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the plea hearing Later that day Villafana met with Goldberger and gave him th list of individuals the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the provision applied In her CVRA case declaration Wild stated that I did not have any reason to attend that hearing because no one had told me that this guilty plea was related to the FBIs investigation of Epsteins abuse of me She stated that she would have attended and tried to object to the judge and prevent that plea from going forward had she known that the state plea had some connection to blocking the prosecution of my case Similarly CVRA petitioner Jane Doe stated that no one notified me that Epsteins plea had anything to do with my case against him An attorney who represented several victims including one whom the state had subpoenaed for the potential July trial told OPR that he was present in court on June in order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of one of his clients The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing Moreover the attorney informed OPR that although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in the PBPDs investigation and had been deposed by Epsteins attorneys in the state case with the Assistant State Attorney present he did not recall receiving any notice of the June plea hearing from the State Attorneys Office Similarly another of the victims the state had subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the State Attorneys Office but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution they may not have technically been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but rather witnesses On July the State Attorneys Office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June although the plea occurred on June and listed Epsteins sentence The letters did not mention the NP A or the federal investigation XII SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS A Immediately After Epsteins State Guilty Pleas Villafana Notifies Some Victims Attorneys Villafanas contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epsteins June guilty pleas she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims in Villafafia who was present in court and heard Belohlaveks representation told OPR that she had no information as to whether or how the state had notified the victims about the plea hearing Villafafta did contact this attorneys law partner later that day When interviewed by OPR in this same attorney indicated that he was surprised to learn that despite U1e fact that his client was a minor at the time Epstein victimized her she was not the 1ilinor victim Uiat the state identified in the infonnation charging Epstein CNAronberg-0703 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM civil suits that were pending against Epstein.366 Villafana also emailed lone of the pro bono attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment informing him that the federal investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an 223agreement with the USAO 223requiring him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the victims Villafana advised Goldberger 223The FBI has received several calls regarding the NPA I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the NPA was filed under seal but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked July The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated On July victims attorney Edwards spoke to Villafana by telephone about the resolution of the state case against Epstein 223and the next stage of the federal prosecution In his affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation Edwards asserted that during this conversation Villafana did not inform him of the NPA but that during the call he sensed that the USAO 223was beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes However in an email Villafana sent after the call she informed Sloman that during the call Edwards stated that 223his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal Villafana told Sloman that after she told Edwards that the government was bound by the agreement assuming Epstein completed it Edwards asked that there is the slightest bit of hesitation on Epstein 2s part of completing his performance that he and his three clients be allowed to consult with the USAO before making a decision That same day Edwards wrote a letter to Villafana complaining that Epstein 2s state court sentence was 223grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude and urged Villafana to 223move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr Epstein has committed On July Edwards filed his emergency petition in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Courtney Wild who was then identified only as 223Jane Doe She was soon joined by a second petitioner and they were respectively referred to as 223Jane Doe and 223Jane Doe Edwards claimed that the government had violated his clients rights under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with the victims The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the CVRA The USAO opposed the petition arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were According to Villafana 2s handwritten notes from June Villafana left a message for two of the attorneys In his affidavit filed in the CVRA case Edwards recalled that his telephone conversation occurred on June but noted that it could possibly have occurred on July Sloman responded 223Thanks Later attempts by two additional victims to join the ongoing CVRA litigation were denied by the court I i I CA/Aronberg-0704 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM civil suits that were pending against Epstein Villafana also emailed one of the pro bono attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment informing him that the federal investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an agreement with the USAO requiring him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the victims Villafana advised Goldberger The FBI has received several calls regarding the NP A I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the NPA was filed under seal but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked July The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated On July victims attorney Edwards spoke to Villafana by telephone about the resolution of the state case against Epstein and the next stage of the federal prosecution In his affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation Edwards asserted that during this conversation Villafana did not inform him of the NP A but that during the call he sensed that the USAO was beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes However in an email Villafana sent after the call she informed Sloman that during the call Edwards stated that his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal Villafana told Sloman that after she told Edwards that the government was bound by the agreement assuming Epstein completed it Edwards asked that if there is the slightest bit of hesitation on Epsteins part of completing his performance that he and his three clients be allowed to consult with the USAO before making a decision That same day Edwards wrote a letter to Villafana complaining that Epsteins state court sentence was grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude and urged Villafana to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr Epstein has committed On July Edwards filed his emergency petition in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Courtney Wild who was then identified only as Jane Doe She was soon joined by a second petitioner and they were respectively referred to as Jane Doe and Jane Doe Edwards claimed that the government had violated his clients rights under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting with the victims The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the CVRA The USAO opposed the petition arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were According to Villafafias handwritten notes from June Villafana left a message for two of the attorneys In his affidavit filed in the CVRA case Edwards recalled that his telephone conversation occurred on June but noted that it could possibly have occurred on July Sloman responded Thanks Later attempts by two additional victims to join the ongoing CVRA litigation we1r denied by the court CA/Aronberg-0704 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government 2s agreement in to defer prosecution to the state.370 July Villafana Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed Victims On July Villafana provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for U.S.C purposes noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June letter Villafana also informed the defense that beginning the following day she would distribute notifications to each of the victims and their counsel informing them that Epstein 2s attorney would be the contact for any civil litigation if the victim decided to pursue damages Finally the letter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any 223one of these victims is entitled to proceed under U.S.C to be considered a breach of the terms of the NPA After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice letter Villafana drafted a letter she sent on July and to nine victims who had previously retained counsel The letter informed the victims and their counsel that light of Epstein 2s June state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution and his sentence of a total of months imprisonment followed by months community control 223the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence subject to certain conditions The letter included a reference to the U.S.C provision of the NPA and although the defense had never agreed to it used language from Acosta 2s December letter to Epstein defense attorney Sanchez clarifying the damages provision The paragraph below was described as 223one such condition to which Epstein has agreed Any person who while a minor was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title United States Code Section will have the same rights to proceed under Section as she would have had if Mr Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense For purposes of implementing this paragraph the United States shall provide Mr Epstein 2s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr Epstein Any judicial authority interpreting this provision including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have-273 been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less On July Villafana sent Goldberger a 223Final Notification of Identified Victims highlighting the defendant 2s obligations under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to As described in Section XII.G of this Part tire matter continued in litigation for years and resulted in the district court 2s February opinion concluding that the government violated the victims rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before signing the NPA i i CA/Aronberg-0705 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the governments agre 242ment in to defer prosecution to the state July Villafana Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed Victims On July Villafana provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for U.S.C purposes noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June letter Villafana also infonned the defense that beginning the following day she would distribute notifications to each of the victims and their counsel informing them that Epsteins attorney would be the contact for any civil litigation if the victim decided to pursue damages Finally the letter infonned the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any one of these victims is entitled to proceed under U.S.C to be considered a breach of the tenns of the NPA After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice letter Villafana drafted a letter she sent on July and to nine victims who had previously retained counsel The letter informed the victims and their counsel that in light of Epsteins June state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution and his sentence of a total of months imprisonment followed by months community control the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of this state plea and sentence subject to certain conditions The letter included a reference to the U.S.C provision of the NPA and although the defense had never agreed to it used language from Acostas December letter to Epstein defense attorney Sanchez clarifying the damages provision The paragraph below was described as one such condition to which Epstein has agreed Any person who while a minor was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title United States Code Section will have the same rights to proceed under Section as she would have had if Mr Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense For purposes of implementing this paragraph the United States shall provide Mr Epsteins attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr Epstein Any judicial authority interpreting this provision including any authority detennining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr Epstein been convicted at trial No more no less On July Villafana sent Goldberger a Final Notification of Identified Victims highlighting the defendants obligations under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to i As described in Section Xll.G of this Part the matter continued in litigation for years and resulted in the district courts February opinion concluding U1at the government violated the victi1 i rights under U1e CVRA by failing to consult with them before signing the NP A CNAronberg-0705 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM U.S.C and again listing the 223individuals whom the United States was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense The same day Villafana sent Goldberger a second letter noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notifications on a rolling basis Villafana informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to the listed victims who were unrepresented to inform them that the case was resolved and to confirm their addresses for notification by mail With regard to the content of the telephone calls Villafana proposed the following language to the case agents We are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein investigation and to thank you for your help Mr Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense that will require him to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement Mr Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of restitution All of these terms are set out in a letter that AUS A Villafana is going to send out Do you have a lawyer Get name or address If not where do you want the letter sent If you have questions when you receive the letter please understand that we cannot provide legal advice but the lawyers at the following victim rights organizations are able to help you at no cost to you Provide names and phone numbers Also ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still available even though the investigation is closed On July Villafana sent the letter to the unrepresented victims whose addresses the FBI had by that time confirmed Villafana provided Epstein 2s defense counsel with a copy of the letter sent to each victim directly or though counsel with the mailing addresses redacted July August The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims Residing Outside of the United States While attempting to locate and contact the unrepresented victims the FBI obtained contact information for two victims residing outside of the United States On July and August respectively the FBI Victim Specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to each victim through the FBI representative at the U.S diplomatic mission for each country This A month later in an August letter to the USAO the defense sought to limit the government 2s victim list to those victims who were identified before the September execution of the NPA Villafana also raised with Acosta Sloman and other supervisors the question whether the USAO had developed sufficient evidence to include new victims it had identified since creation of the July list and whether Jane Doe who had previously given a statement in support of Epstein sliould be added back to the list Ultimately Villafana sent the defense a letter confinning that the government 2s July victim list was 223the final list i CA/Aronberg-0706 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I U.S.C and again listing the individuals whom the United States was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense The same day Villafana sent Goldberger a second letter noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notification on a rolling basis Villafana informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to the listed victims who were unrepresented to inform them that the case was resolved and to confirm their addresses for notification by mail With regard to the content of the telephone calls Villafana proposed the following language to the case agents We are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein investigation and to thank you for your help Mr Epstein pied guilty to one child sex offense that will require him to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement Mr Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of res ti tuti on AJI of these terms are set out in a letter that AUSA Villafana is going to send out Do you have a lawyer Get name or address If not where do you want the letter sent If you have questions when you receive the letter please understand that we cannot provide legal advice but the lawyers at the following victim rights organizations are able to help you at no cost to you Provide names and phone numbers Also ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still available even though the investigation is closed On July Villafana sent the letter to the unrepresented victims whose addresses the FBI had by that time confirmed Villafana provided Epsteins defense counsel with a copy of the letter sent to each victim directly or though counsel with the mailing addresses redacted July August The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims Residing Outside of the United States While attempting to locate and contact the unrepresented victims the FBI obtained contact information for two victims residing outside of the United States On July and August respectively the FBI Victim Specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to each victim through the FBI representative at the U.S diplomatic mission for each country This A month later in an August letter to the USAO the defense sought to limit the governments victim list to those victims who were identified before the September execution of the NP A Villafai1a also raised with Acosta Sloman and other supervisors the question whether the USAO had developed sufficient evidence to include new victims it had identified since creation of the July list and whether Jane Doe who had previously given a statement in support of Epstein should be added back to the list Ultimately Villafana sent the defense a letter confinning that the governments July IO victim list was the final list CA/Aronberg-0706 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to victims in and in that it identified each recipient as possible victim of a federal crime and listed her eight CVRA rights The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in state court on June or that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state plea Rather like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter the letter requested the victims 223assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case For each of the two victims residing outside of the United States Villafana also drafted a notification letter concerning the June plea and the U.S.C process which were to be hand delivered along with the FBI 2s letters However FBI records do not reflect whether the USAO 2s letter was delivered to the two victims August September The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose the NPA to Victims and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter On August the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to the NPA The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the On August the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of the NPA subject to a protective order In addition the court ordered the government to produce the NPA to other identified victims upon request If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attorney for those individuals request the opportunity to review the NPA then the USAO shall produce the NPA to those individuals so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the NPA or its terms to any third party absent further court order following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein 2s counsel to be heard.373 In September the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims and attorneys for represented victims concerning Epstein 2s state court guilty plea and his agreement to not contest liability in victim civil suits brought under U.S.C The September letter appeared to address concerns raised by Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that the government 2s earlier notification letter referenced language concerning U.S.C that the government had proposed in Acosta 2s December letter to Epstein attorney Sanchez but that the defense had not accepted.375 As a result of the defense objection Villafana determined that she was Pursuant to paragraph of the NPA Villafana made Epstein 2s attorneys aware of the petitioners request for the NPA Doe Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at Aug i The USAO sent a notification letter to additional victims who had not received a notification letter in July Tliis issue is discussed more fully in Chapter Two I i CA/Aronberg-0707 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification lett the FBI had sent to victims in and in that it identified each recipient as a possible victim of a federal crime and listed her eight CVRA rights The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pied guilty in state court June or that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state plea Rather like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter the letter requested the victims assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case For each of the two victims residing outside of the United States Villafana also drafted a notification letter concerning the June plea and the U.S.C process which were to be hand delivered along with the FBIs letters However FBI records do not reflect whether the USAOs letter was delivered to the two victims August September The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose the NPA to Victims and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter On August the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to the NPA The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA On August the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of the NP A subject to a protective order In addition the court ordered the government to produce the NP A to other identified victims upon request lf any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and/or any attorney for those individuals request the opportunity to review the NPA then the USAO shall produce the NPA to those individuals so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the NPA or its terms to any third party absent further court order following notice to and an opportunity for Epsteins counsel to be heard In September the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims and attorneys for represented victims concerning Epsteins state court guilty plea and his agreement to not contest liability in victim civil suits brought under U.S.C The September letter appeared to address concerns raised by Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that the governments earlier notification letter referenced language concerning U.S.C that the government had proposed in Acostas December letter to Epstein attorney Sanchez but that the defense had not accepted As a result of the defense objection Villafana determined that she was Pursuant to paragraph of the NPA Villafafia made Epsteins attorneys aware of the petitioners request for the NPA July Doe Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at Aug I The USAO also sent a notification letter to additional victims who had not received a notification letter in This issue is discussed more fully in Chapter Two CA/Aronberg-0707 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter.376 Accordingly the September letter contained no information about the parties intent in implementing U.S.C but merely referred to the NPA languageIconcerning Epstein 2s waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision In addition the September letter described the appointment of a special master the special master 2s selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their U.S.C litigation against Epstein and Epstein 2s agreement to pay the attorney representative 2s fees arising out of such litigation The letter also clarified that Epstein 2s agreement to pay for attorneys fees did not extend to contested litigation against him The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court 2s order concerning providing victims with copies of the NPA The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA In addition a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim and/or her attorney a copy of the actual agreement between Mr Epstein and the United States so long as the victim and/or her attorney reviews signs and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court If the victim would like to review the Agreement please let me know and will forward a copy of the Protective for her signature The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein 2s counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter For example in response to the above language regarding the August court order in the CVRA litigation the defense argued that there was court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 221victims with notice that the NPA is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the NPA In response and in consultation with USAO management Villafana revised the paragraph as follows In addition there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr Epstein The attorney selected by the special master can provide further guidance on this issue or if you select another attorney to represent you that attorney can review the Court 2s order in the CVRA litigation On September a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case.377 In the letter Villafafia expressed frustration with defense counsels claim relative to the December letter that was included in the July notification letter noting that the July letter had been approved by defense counsel before being sent See Susan Spencer-Wendel 223Epstein 2s Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 221Highly Unusual Terms Palm Beach Post Sept i CA/Aronberg-0708 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to th December letter Accordingly the September letter contained no information about the parties intent in implementing U.S.C but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epsteins waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision In addition the September letter described the appointment of a special master the special masters selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their U.S.C litigation against Epstein and Epsteins agreement to pay the attorney representatives fees arising out of such litigation The letter also clarified that Epsteins agreement to pay for attorneys fees did not extend to contested litigation against him The government also intended for the letter to comply with the courts order concerning providing victims with copies of the NP A The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA In addition a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim and/or her attorney a copy of the actual agreement between Mr Epstein and the United States so long as the victim and/or her attorney reviews signs and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court If the victim would like to review the Agreement please let me know and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epsteins counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter For example in response to the above language regarding the August court order in the CVRA litigation the defense argued that there was no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged victims with notice that the NP A is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the NP A In response and in consultation with USAO management Villafana revised the paragraph as follows In addition there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr Epstein The attorney selected by the special master can provide further guidance on this issue or if you select another attorney to represent you that attorney can review the Courts order in the CVRA litigation On September a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case in the letter Villafafla expressed frustration with defense counsels claim relative to the December letter that was included in the July notification letter noting that the July letter had been approved by defense counsel before being sent See Susan Spencer-Wendel Epsteins Secret Pact With Fed Reveals Highly Unu al Terms Palm Beach Post Sept CA/Aronberg-0708 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Department and Congressional Actions Regarding Interpretation of the CVRA I In connection with the Department 2s effort to update its Guidelines the Office of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group that asked OLC to revisit its preliminary review concerning the definition of 223crime victim under the CVRA and solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement agencies In response OLC issued a December opinion entitled The Availability of Crime Victims Rights Under the Crime Victims Rights Act of Based on the CVRA 2s language relevant case law and memoranda opinions from Department components OLC reaffirmed its conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed by complaint information or indictment and the rights cease to be available if 223all charges are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits or if the government declines to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint After OLC issued its opinion the Department revised the Guidelines in October but not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal charges were filed The revision did however add language concerning victim consultation before a defendant is charged circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has been brought Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court The use of the word 223should in the Guidelines indicates that 223personnel are expected to take the action unless there is an appropriate articulable reason not to do so Nevertheless the required consultation 223may be general in nature and 223does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer The revisions also specified that AUSAs were to ensure that victims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings.382 On November U.S Senator Jon Kyi a co-sponsor of the CVRA sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder arguing that the Guidelines revisions 223conflicted quite clearly with the CVRA 2s plain language because the Guidelines did 223not extend any rights to victims until charges have been filed The Department 2s response emphasized that the OLC 223expressfed no opinion as to whether it is a matter of 223good practice to inform victims of their CVRA rights prior to the filing of a complaint or after the dismissal of charges See Guidelines Art available at ag_guidelines2012 pdf In its online training video regarding tire Guidelines the Department encouraged such consultation when reasonable but it also continued to maintain that there was no CVRA right to confer for pre indictment plea negotiations See Guidelines Art I See Guidelines Art The Guidelines contained no specific provision requiring AUSAs to ensure that victims were able to exercise their right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings only at sentencing See Guidelines Art IV However tire Guidelines generally require AUSAs to use their best efforts to comply with the CVRA and tire CVRA specifically affords victims the right to be heard at plea proceedings The revision remedied this omission I CA/Aronberg-0709 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Department and Congressional Interpretation of the CVRA I i ctions I I I I Regarding In connection with the Departments effort to update its Guidelines the Office of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Gro.up that asked OLC to revisit its preliminary review concerning the definition of crime victim under the CVRA and solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement agencies In response OLC issued a December opinion entitled The Availability of Crime Victims Rights Under the Crime Victims Rights Act of Based on the CVRA language relevant case law and memoranda opinions from Department components OLC reaffirmed its conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed by complaint information or indictment and the rights cease to be available if all charges are dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits or if the government declines to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint After OLC issued its opinion the Department revised the Guidelines in October but did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal charges were filed The revision did however add language concerning victim consultation before a defendant is charged In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has been brought Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court The use of the word should in the Guidelines indicates that personnel are expected to take the action unless there is an appropriate articulable reason not to do so Nevertheless the required consultation may be general in nature and does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer The revisions also specified that AUSAs were to ensure that victims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings On November U.S Senator Jon Ky a co-sponsor of the CVRA sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder arguing that the Guidelines revisions conflicted quite clearly with the CVRAs plain language because the Guidelines did not extend any rights to victims until charges have been filed The Departments response emphasized that the bLC expressed no opinion as to whether it is a matter of"good practice to inform victims of their CVRA rights prior to the filing of a complaint or after the dismissal of charges See Guidelines Art ii available at ag_guidelines2012 pdf In its online training video regarding the Guidelines the Department encouraged such consultation when reasonable but it also continued to maintain that there was no CVRA right to confer for pre indictment plea negotiations See Guidelines Art I ii See Guidelines Art ii I The Guidelines contained no specific provision requiring AUSAs to ensur that victims were able to exercise their right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings only at sentencing See Guidelines Art IV ii However U1e Guidelines generally require AUSAs to use U1eir best fforts to comply with U1e CVRA and U1e CVRA specifically affords victims the right to be heard at plea proceedings The revision remedied this omission I CA/Aronberg-0709 I FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Department had made its 223best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to assert support and defend crime victims rights The response also referenced OLC 2s December opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated noting that new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court In Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section of the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of U.S.C and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida numerous federal civil suits against Epstein brought in the same district were transferred to the same judge as 223related cases as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules As the parties agreed on settlements in those civil cases they were dismissed.384 Several of the victims who had settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to 223maintain their anonymity and not 223further disseminate their identities to the CVRA petitioners.385 In the CVRA case the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights to confer by negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input sending letters to the victims claiming that the matter was 223under investigation after the NPA was already signed and not properly informing the victims that the state plea would also resolve the federal investigation In addition the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the NPA and resolved the federal investigation During the litigation the USAO argued that the victims had no right to notice or conferral about the NPA because the CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge the government 2s Cong Rec Kyi letter and Department response Epstein also resolved some county court civil cases during this time period as well In addition numerous other cases were resolved outside of formal litigation For example one attorney told OPR that he resolved victim cases did not file all cases with the court Court data indicate that the attorney filed only of the cases he said he resolved Doe Response to Court Order of July and United States Notice of Partial Compliance at July I I I I CA/Aronberg-0710 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I Department had made its best efforts in thousands of federal and District bf Columbia cases to assert support and defend crime victims rights The response also referenced OLCs December opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated noting that the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court In Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section of the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of U.S.C and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida numerous federal civil suits against Epstein brought in the same district were transferred to the same judge as related cases as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules As the parties agreed on settlements in those civil cases they were dismissed Several of the victims who had settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to maintain their anonymity and not further disseminate their identities to the CVRA petitioners In the CVRA case the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights to confer by I negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input sending letters to the victims claiming that the matter was under investigation after the NP A was already signed and not properly informing the victims that the state plea would also resolve the federal investigation In addition the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the NP A and resolved the federal investigation During the litigation the USAO argued that the victims had no right to notice or conferral about the NPA because the CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge the governments Cong Rec Kyl letter and Department response Epstein also resolved some county court civil cases during this time period as well In addition numerous other cases were resolved outside of fonnal litigation For example one attorney told OPR that he resolved victim cases but did not file all cases with the court Court data indicate that the attorney filed only of the cases he said he resolved Doe Response to Court Order of July and United States Notice of Partial Compliance at I July CA/Aronberg-071 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was 223under investigation because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that Epstein would plead guilty and Villafana contacted the petitioners attorney prior to Epstein 2s state plea to advise him of the hearing Nonetheless Villafana told OPR that while there were valid reasons for the government 2s position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge 223This is a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required I was obviously prepared to spend as much time energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every victim Over the course of the litigation the district court made various rulings interpreting the provisions of the CVRA including the court 2s key conclusion that victim CVRA rights 223attach before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant The court also held that 223the CVRA authorizes the rescission or 221reopening of a prosecutorial agreement including a non-prosecution agreement reached in violation of a prosecutor 2s conferral obligations under the statute the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements the CVRA 2s 223reasonable right to confer 223extends to the pre-charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render the Doe petitioners 223victims under the CVRA and 223questions pertaining to the equitable defensefs are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record On February the district court granted the petitioners Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ruling that 223once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA a violation of the CVRA occurred The government did not dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the NPA and the court concluded that a bare minimum the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein The court found that the post NPA letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing 223misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility and that was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute The court relied on Dean and BP Products to support its holding and noted that the government 2s action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because unlike a plea agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing 223once an NPA is entered into without notice the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO 2s failure to communicate with the victims while it simultaneously engaged in 223lengthy negotiations with Epstein 2s counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be 223made public or filed with the Court Although the JSAO defended its actions by citing the Guidelines for the Department 2s position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged the court was 223not persuaded that the Guidelines were the basis for the Government 2s decision to withhold information about the NPA from the victims The court found that the government 2s reliance on The court did not resolve the factual question as to whether the victims were given adequate notice of Epstein 2s state court plea hearing i i CA/Aronberg-0711 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I letters to victims sent after the NP A was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was under investigation because the government continued to investigate giv its uncertainty that Epstein would plead guilty and Villafana contacted the petitioners attorney prior to Epsteins state plea to advise him of the hearing Nonetheless Villafana told OPR that while there were valid reasons for the governments position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge This is a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required I was obviously prepared to spend as much time energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every victim Over the course of the litigation the district court made various rulings interpreting the provisions of the CVRA including the courts key conclusion that victim CVRA rights attach before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant The court also held that the CVRA authorizes the rescission or reopening of a prosecutorial agreement including a non-prosecution agreement reached in violation of a prosecutors conferral obligations under the statute the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements the CVRAs reasonable right to confer extends to the pre-charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render the Doe petitioners victims under the CVRA and questions pertaining to the equitable defenses are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record On February the district court granted the petitioners Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ruling that once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA a violation of the CVRA occurred The government did not dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the NP A and the court concluded that at a bare minimum the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein The court found that the post NP A letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility and that it was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute The court relied on Dean and BP Products to support its holding and noted that the governments action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because unlike a plea agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing once an NPA is entered into without notice the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case The court also highlighted the inequity of the USA Os failure to communicate with the victims while it simultaneously engaged in lengthy negotiations with Epsteins counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be made public or filed with the Court Although the USAO defended its actions by citing the Guidelines for the Departments position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged the court was not persuaded that the Guidelines were the basis for the Governments decision to withhold information about the NPA from the victims The court found that the governments reliance on The court did not resolve the factual question as to whether the victims were given adequate notice of Epsteins state court plea hearing CA/Aronberg-0711 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in1 correspondence with Epstein 2s attorneys in which the government acknowledged that had obligations to notify the victims The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies Accordingly the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies including rescission of the NPA a written apology to all victims from the government a meeting with Acosta Villafana and her supervisors access to government records including grand jury materials training for USAO employees and monetary sanctions and attorneys fees.387 Following Epstein 2s indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death while in custody on September the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied the petitioners motion for remedies and closed the case stating that Epstein 2s death 223rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the Court namely whether the Government 2s violation of Petitioners rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA moot The court did not order the government to take corrective measures but stated that it 223fully expects the Government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims The court also denied the petitioners request for attorneys fees finding that the government did not act in bad faith because 223although unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation On September Wild appealed the district court 2s rejection of the requested remedies through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief the government expressed sympathy for Wild and 223regret for the manner in which it communicated with her in the past Nevertheless the government argued that a matter of law the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case and thus 223the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought The government conceded however that with regard to the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted 223petitioner and other Epstein Doe Jane Doc and Jane Doe 2s Submission on Proposed Remedies May Doe Opinion and Order Sept Among other tilings the court rejected the petitioners contention lliat it not address whether the government had violated the victims CVRA rigid to be treated with fairness and to receive fair notice of the proceedings noting tliat these rights all flow from the rigid to confer and were encompassed in the Court 2s ruling finding a violation of the CVRA The Department 2s Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims Rights in the Federal System to the USAO on January See In re Wild No Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act U.S.C Sept Wild Brief of the United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under the Crime Victims Rights Act at Oct As previously noted at this point the litigation was being liandled by the U.S Attorney 2s Office for the Northern District of Georgia The government also noted that although the CVRA was amended in to include a victim 2s right to be notified in a timely manner of plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements lie amendment did not extend to non-prosecution agreements which unlike plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreements do not require court involvement I CA/Aronberg-0712 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM the Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with Epsteins attorneys in which the government acknowledged that it had obligations to notify the victims The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regaiding the appropriate remedies Accordingly the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies including rescission of the NP A a written apology to all victims from the government a meeting with Acosta Villafana and her supervisors access to government records including grand jury materials training for USAO employees and monetary sanctions and attorneys fees Following Epsteins indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death while in custody on September the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied the petitioners motion for remedies and closed the case stating that Epsteins death rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the Court namely whether the Governments violation of Petitioners rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA moot The court did not order the government to take corrective measures but stated that it fully expects the Government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims The court also denied the petitioners request for attorneys fees finding that the government did not act in bad faith because although unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation On September Wild appealed the district courts rejection of the requested remedies through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit In its responsive brief the government expressed sympathy for Wild and regret for the manner in which it communicated with her in the past Nevertheless the government argued that as a matter of law the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case and thus the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought The government conceded however that with regard to the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted petitioner and other Epstein Doe Jane Doc and Jane Doc Submission on Proposed Remedies May Doe Opinion and Order Sept Among other tirings the court rejected the petitioners contention tliat it did not address whether t11e government had violated t11e victims CVRA right to be treated with fairness and to receive fair notice of the proceedings noting that these rights all flow from the right to confer and were encompassed in the Courts ruling finding a violation of the CVRA The Departments Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims Rights in the Federal System to t11e USAO on January See In re Wild No Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act U.S.C Sept 1-Vild Brief of U1e United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under t11e Crime Victims Rights Act at Oct As previously noted at Uris point the litigation was being handled by t11e U.S Attorneys Office for t11e Northern District of Georgia The goverrunent also noted tliat altlmugh the CVRA was amended in to include a victims right to be notified in a timely manner of plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements t11e amendment did not extend to non-prosecution agreements which unlike plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreements do not require court involvement CA/Aronberg-0712 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I victims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect and to be conferred with on the criminal case not just because the CVRA requires it but because it 2s the right thing to do During oral argument on January the government apologized for the USAO 2s treatment of Wild The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with Ms Wild about what it is that was going on with respect to the NPA and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed The government should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way with Ms Wild and for that we are genuinely sorry.393 On April a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild 2s petition for a writ of mandamus concluding that 223the CVRA does not apply before the commencement of criminal proceedings 227and thus on the facts of this case does not provide the petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights The court conducted a thorough analysis of the language of the statute the legislative history and previous court decisions The court distinguished In re Dean as 223dictum consisting of a 223three-sentence discussion devoid of any analysis of the CVRA 2s text history or structural underpinnings The court noted that its interpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department 2s OLC opinion concerning victim standing under the CVRA and the Department 2s efforts in 223implementing regulations Finally the court raised separation of powers concerns with Wild 2s and the dissenting judge 2s interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA noting that such an interpretation would interfere with prosecutorial discretion Nevertheless the court was highly critical of the government 2s conduct in the underlying case stating that the government 223seemingly deferred to Epstein 2s lawyers regarding information it provided victims about the NPA and that its 223efforts seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to or at least close to active misrepresentation The court concluded that although it 223seems obvious that the government 223should have consulted with petitioner and other victims before negotiating and executing Epstein 2s NPA the court could not conclude that the government was obligated to do so In addition the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly worded opinion asserting that the majority 2s statutory interpretation was 223contorted because the 223plain and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include a post-indictment temporal restriction On May Wild filed a petition for rehearing en banc On August the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel 2s opinion as of the date of this Report a briefing schedule has been issued and oral argument is set for December Audio recording of Oral Argument Wild No Jan In re Wild F.3d 11th Cir CA/Aronberg-0713 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM victims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect and to be conferrec with on the criminal case not just because the CVRA requires it but because its the right thing to do During oral argument on January the government apologized for the USAOs treatment of Wild The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with Ms Wild about what it is that was going on with respect to the NP A and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NP A had been signed The government should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way with Ms Wild and for that we are genuinely sorry On April a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Wilds petition for a writ of mandamus concluding that the CVRA does not apply before the commencement of criminal proceedings-and thus on the facts of this case does not provide the petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights The court conducted a thorough analysis of the language of the statute the legislative history and previous court decisions The court distinguished in re Dean as dictum consisting of a three-sentence discussion devoid of any analysis of the CVRAs text history or structural underpinnings The court noted that its interpretation of the CYRA was consistent with the Departments OLC opinion concerning victim standing under the CYRA and the Departments efforts in implementing regulations Finally the court raised separation of powers concerns with Wilds and the dissentingjudges interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA noting that such an interpretation would interfere with prosecutorial discretion Nevertheless the court was highly critical of the governments conduct in the underlying case stating that the government seemingly deferred to Epsteins lawyers regarding information it provided victims about the NP A and that its efforts seem to have graduated from passive nondisclosure to or at least close to active misrepresentation The court concluded that although it seems obvious that the government should have consulted with petitioner and other victims before negotiating and executing Epsteins NPA the court could not conclude that the government was obligated to do so In addition the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly worded opinion asserting that the majoritys statutory interpretation was contorted because the plain and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include a post-indictment temporal restriction On May Wild filed a petition for rehearing en bane On August the court granted the petition for rehearing en bane and vacated the panels opinion as of the date of this Report a briefing schedule has been issued and oral argument is set for December Audio recording of Oral Argument Wild No Jan In re Wild F.3d 11th Cir CA Aronberg-0713 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CA/Aronberg-0714 Page Intentionally Left Blank FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Page Intentionally Left Blank CA/Aronberg-0714 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER THREE i I PART TWO APPLICABLE STANDARDS i i I STATUTORY PROVISIONS Pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA applicable during the relevant time period are set forth below A The CVRA U.S.C a Rights of Crime Victims crime victim has the following rights The right to be reasonably protected from the accused The right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding unless the court after receiving clear and convincing evidence determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release plea sentencing or any parole proceeding The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim 2s dignity and privacy Best Efforts To Accord Rights and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of and accorded the rights described in subsection a Definitions Crime victim A In general 227The term 223crime victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia i CA/Aronberg-0715 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER THREE PART TWO APPLICABLE STANDARDS I ST A TUTORY PROVISIONS Pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA applicable during the relevant time period are set forth below A The CVRA U.S.C a Rights of Crime Victims A crime victim has the following rights The right to be reasonably protected from the accused The right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding unless the court after receiving clear and convincing evidence determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release plea sentencing or any parole proceeding The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victims dignity and privacy Best Efforts To Accord Rights Government-Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of and accorded the rights described in subsection a Definitions Crime victim CA In general The term crime victim means a person dir ctly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an ense in the District of Columbia CA/Aronberg-0715 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM The Victims Rights and Restitution Act of VRRA U.S.C Services to Victims formerly cited as USCA Identification of victims At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation a responsible official shall identify the victim or victims of a crime inform the victims of their right to receive on request the services described in subsection and inform each victim of the name title and business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services described in subsection Description of services A responsible official shall A inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and social services inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling treatment and other support to the victim and assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief described in subparagraphs A and A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender During the investigation and prosecution of a crime a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice-316.8 of A the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation the arrest of a suspected offender the filing of charges against a suspected offender the scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or under section of Title is entitled to attend the release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial and the sentence imposed on an offender including the date on which the offender will be eligible for parole CA/Aronberg-0716 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I The Victims Rights and Restitution Act of VRRA U.S.C Services to Victims formerly cited as USCA Identification of victims At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation a responsible official shall identify the victim or victims of a crime inform the victims of their right to receive on request the services described in subsection and inform each victim of the name title and business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services described in subsection Description of services A responsible official shall A inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and social services inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling treatment and other support to the victim and assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief described in subparagraphs A and A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender During the investigation and prosecution of a crime a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of A the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation the arrest of a suspected offender the filing of charges against a suspected offender the scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or under section of Title is entitled to attend the release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendfring of a verdict after trial and the sentence imposed on an offender including the date on which the offender will be eligible for parole CA/Aronberg-0716 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM During court proceedings a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a waiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense witnesses Definitions the term 223victim means a person that has suffered direct physical emotional or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime II DEPARTMENT POLICY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES In the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to incorporate the provisions of the CVRA The purpose of the Guidelines was establish guidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative prosecutorial and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime The relevant portions of the Guidelines are as follows Article IV Services to Victims and Witnesses A Investigation Stage The investigative agency 2s responsibilities begin with the report of the crime and extend through the prosecution of the case In some instances when explicitly stated the investigative agency 2s responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting agency when charges are filed Identification of Victims At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation the responsible official of the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime Description of Services a Information Notice and Referral Initial Information and Notice Responsible officials must advise a victim pursuant to this section at the earliest opportunity after detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation To comply with this requirement it is recommended that victims be given a printed brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and the available services identifies the local I CA/Aronberg-0717 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I During court proceedings a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a waiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the fendant and defense I witnesses Definitions the term victim means a person that has suffered direct physical emotional or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime II DEPARTMENT POLICY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES In the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to incorporate the provisions of the CVRA The purpose of the Guidelines was to establish guidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative prosecutorial and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime The relevant portions of the Guidelines are as follows Article IV Services to Victims and Witnesses A Investigation Stage The investigative agencys responsibilities begin with the report of.the crime and extend through the prosecution of the case In some instances when explicitly stated the investigative agencys responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting agency when charges are filed Identification of Victims At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation the responsible official of the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime Description of Services a Information Notice and Referral CA/Aronberg-0717 lnitial Information and Notice Responsible officials must advise a victim pursuant to this section at the earliest opportunity after detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation To comply with this requirement it is recommended that victims be given a pritited brochure or card that brietly describes their rights and the available service identifies the local FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM service providers and lists the names and telephone numbers;of the victim-witness coordinator or specialist and other key officials A victim must be informed of a His or her rights as enumerated in U.S.C a His or her right entitlement on request to the services listed in U.S.C The name title business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom such a request for services should be addressed The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social services The availability of any restitution or other relief including crime victim compensation programs to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling treatment and other support to the victim i The availability of services for victims of domestic violence sexual assault or stalking The option of being included in VNS Available protections from intimidation and harassment Notice during the investigation During the investigation of a crime a responsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice concerning a The status of the investigation of the crime to the extent that it is appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation The arrest of a suspected offender Prosecution Stage The prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing legal proceedings including appeals and collateral attacks I I I CA/Aronberg-0718 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I i service providers and lists the names and telephone numbers!of the victim-witness coordinator or specialist and other key officials A victim st be informed of a His or her rights as enumerated in U.S.C a His or her right entitlement on request to the services listed in U.S.C The name title business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom such a request for services should be addressed The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social services The availability of any restitution or other relief including crime victim compensation programs to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling treatment and other support to the victim i The availability of services for victims of domestic violence sexual assault or stalking The option of being included in VNS Available protections from intimidation and harassment Notice during the investigation During the investigation of a crime a responsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice concern mg a The status of the investigation of the crime to the extent that it 1s appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation The arrest of a suspected offender Prosecution Stage The prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing legal proceedings including appeals and collateral attacks CNAronberg-0718 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Responsible Officials For cases in which charges been instituted the responsible official is the U.S Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending Services to Crime Victims Information Notice and Referrals Notice of Rights Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated in U.S.C a Notice of Right To Seek Counsel The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in U.S.C a Notice of Right To Attend Trial The responsible official should inform the crime victim about the victim 2s right to attend the trial regardless of whether the victim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of the crime on the victim during sentencing Notice of Case Events During the prosecution of a crime a responsible official shall provide the victim using VNS where appropriate with reasonable notice of a The filing of charges against a suspected offender The release or escape of an offender or suspected offender The schedule of court proceedings i The responsible official shall provide the victim with reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or parole proceeding that involves the crime against the victim In the event of an emergency or other last-minute hearing or change in the time or date of a hearing the responsible official should consider providing notice by telephone or expedited means This notification requirement relates to postsentencing proceedings as well ii The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the scheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the victim or witness is required or entitled to attend The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial I CA/Aronberg-0719 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Responsible Officials For cases in which charges have been instftuted the responsible official is the U.S Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending Services to Crime Victims Information Notice and Referrals CA/Aronberg-0719 Notice of Rights Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated in U.S.C a Notice of Right To Seek Counsel The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in U.S.C a Notice of Right To Attend Trial The responsible official should inform the crime victim about the victims right to attend the trial regardless of whether the victim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of the crime on the victim during sentencing Notice of Case Events During the prosecution of a crime a responsible official shall provide the victim using VNS where appropriate with reasonable notice of a The filing of charges against a suspected offender The rel ease or escape of an offender or suspected offender The schedule of court proceedings i The responsible official shall provide the victim with reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or parole proceeding that involves the crime against the victim In the event of an emergency or other last-minute hearing or change in the time or date of a hearing the responsible official should consider providing notice by telephone or expedited means This notification requirement relates to postsentencing proceedings as well ii The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the scheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the victim or witness is required or entitled to attend The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM If the offender is convicted the sentence and conditions of supervised release if any that are imposed I Referrals Once charges are filed the responsible official shall assist the victim in contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief previously identified Consultation With a Government Attorney In General A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case The victim 2s right to confer however shall not be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion Federal prosecutors should be available to consult with victims about major case decisions such as dismissals release of the accused pending judicial proceedings when such release is for noninvestigative purposes plea negotiations and pretrial diversion Because victims are not clients may become adverse to the Government and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information Consultations should comply with the prosecutor 2s obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct Representatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither the Department 2s advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship between such victims and the lawyers for the Government Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims Prosecutor Availability Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult with victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays in the prosecution of the case and should at the appropriate time inform the court of the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor Proposed Plea Agreements Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations In determining what is reasonable the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of the particular case including but not limited to the following factors a The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety The number of victims i Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea I CA/Aronberg-0720 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I If the offender is convicted the sentence and con ditions of supervised release if any that are imposed I Referrals Once charges are filed the responsible official shall assist the victim in contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief previously identified Consultation With a Government Attorney CNAronberg-0720 In General A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case The victims right to confer however shall not be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion Federal prosecutors should be available to consult with victims about major case decisions such as dismissals release of the accused pending judicial proceedings when such release is for noninvestigative purposes plea negotiations and pretrial diversion Because victims are not clients may become adverse to the Government and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information Consultations should comply with the prosecutors obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct Representatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither the Departments advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship between such victims and the lawyers for the Government Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims Prosecutor Availability Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult with victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays in the prosecution of the case and should at the appropriate time inform the court of the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor Proposed Plea Agreements Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations In determining what is reasonable the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of the particular case including but not limited to the following factors a The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety The number of victims Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or ent ring a proposed plea FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions Whether there is another need for confidentiality i Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant 2s right to a fair trial FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT A FRPC Candor in Dealing with Others FRPC prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client A comment to this rule explains that 223misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements and 223whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances FRPC Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice FRPC states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or misrepresentation FRPC prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice As previously noted courts have determined that FRPC is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding but can be applied to 223conduct in connection with the practice of law Frederick So 2d at see also Shankman So 3d at CA/Aronberg-0721 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM i Whether the proposed plea involves confidential infopnation or conditions Whether there is another need for confidentiality Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendants right to a fair trial ill FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT A FRPC Candor in Dealing with Others FRPC prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client A comment to this rule explains that misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements and whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances FRPC Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice FRPC states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or misrepresentation FRPC prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice As previously noted courts have determined that FRPC is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding but can be applied to conduct in connection with the practice of law Frederick So 2d at see also Shankman So 3d at CA/Aronberg-0721 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Page Left Intentionally Blank CA/Aronberg-0722 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Page Left Intentionally Blank CNAronberg-0722 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH_ABRUZZO CLERK PM CHAPTER THREE PART THREE ANALYSIS I OVERVIEW In addition to criticism of Acosta 2s decision to end the federal investigation by means of the NPA public and media attention also focused on the government 2s treatment of victims In the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports victims complained that they were not informed about the government 2s intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed did not inform them of Epstein 2s state plea hearing and sentencing thereby denying them the opportunity to attend and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims Rights Act and 223misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility and that was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute The government 2s conduct which involved both FBI and USAO actions led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court OPR examined the government 2s course of conduct when interacting with the victims including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed Acosta 2s decision to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein 2s state plea and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained false or misleading statements OPR also evaluated representations Villafana made to victims in January and February and to an attorney for a victim in June IL THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS During the CVRA litigation the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the government 2s intention to enter into the NPA In its February opinion the district court concluded that 223once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA a violation of the CVRA occurred OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO 2s handling of the Epstein case and examined whether before the NPA was signed on September federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA and if so whether any of the subject attorneys 227Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana 227intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation i I Doe United States Supp 3d S.D Fla Feb i CA/Aronberg-0723 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I OVERVIEW CHAPTER THREE PART THREE ANALYSIS In addition to criticism of Acostas decision to end the federal investigation by means of the NP A public and media attention also focused on the governments treatment of victims In the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports victims complained that they were not informed about the governments intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed did not inform them of Epsteins state plea hearing and sentencing thereby denying them the opportunity to attend and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims Rights Act and misled the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility and that it was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute The governments conduct which involved both FBI and USAO actions led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court OPR examined the governments course of conduct when interacting with the victims including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NP A was signed Acostas decision to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epsteins state plea and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NP A was signed contained false or misleading statements OPR also evaluated representations Villafana made to victims in January and February and to an attorney for a victim in June II THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS During the CVRA litigation the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the governments intention to enter into the NPA In its February opinion the district court concluded that once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NP A a violation of the CVRA occurred OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USA Os handling of the Epstein case and examined whether before the NPA was signed on September federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA and if so whether any of the subject attorneys-Acosta Sloman Menchel Lourie or Villafana-intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation i Doe United States Supp 3d S.D Fla Feb CNAronberg-0723 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM As discussed below OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epsteininvestigation without a federal criminal charge In September when the NPA was signed the Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been jfiled and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were brought Pursuant to OPR 2s established analytical framework OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard Accordingly OPR finds that the subject attorneys conduct not rise to the level of professional misconduct OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government 2s treatment of the victims reflected poorly on the Department as a whole and is contradictory to the Department 2s mission to 223minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake A At the Time No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges Although the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face the threshold issue of whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September At that time the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district court 2s later interpretation in the CVRA litigation The CVRA defines a 223crime victim as person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia On April soon after the CVRA was enacted OLC concluded that 223the status of a 221crime victim may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim 2s harm Beginning with the OLC guidance the Department has consistently taken the position that CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal charges against a defendant whether by complaint indictment or information OLC applied its definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in but noted that the obligation created by the eighth CVRA right 223treat victims with fairness and respect 223always expected of Federal officials and the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of VRRA indicates that this right applies 221throughout the criminal justice process Consistent with the OLC interpretation in May the Department issued the Guidelines to implement the CVRA The Guidelines assigned CVRA-related obligations to prosecutors only after the initiation of federal charges Specifically the Guidelines stated that during the 223prosecution stage the 223responsible official should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of Guidelines Foreword Nevertheless tire portion of the VRRA referenced in tire OLC Informal Guidance U.S.C had been repealed upon passage of the CVRA I I I CA/Aronberg-0724 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I As discussed below OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneJs violated a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein:investigation without a federal criminal charge In September when the NP A was signed Department did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been ifiled and the federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the qVRA before criminal charges were brought Pursuant to OPRs established analytical framework OPR does not find professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard Accordingly OPR finds that the subject attorneys conduct did not rise to the level of professional misconduct OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the governments treatment of the victims reflected poorly on the Department as a whole and is contradictory to the Departments mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake A At the Time No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of Criminal Charges Although the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face the threshold issue of whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NP A with Epstein in September At that time the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district courts later interpretation in the CVRA litigation The CVRA defines a crime victim as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia On April soon after the CVRA was enacted OLC concluded that the status of a crime victim may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victims harm Beginning with the OLC guidance the Department has consistently taken the position that CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal charges against a defendant whether by complaint indictment or information OLC applied its definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in but noted that the obligation created by the eighth CVRA right-to treat victims with fairness and respect"-is always expected ofFederal officials and the Victims Rights and Restitution Act of VRRA indicates that this right applies throughout the criminal justice process Consistent with the OLC interpretation in May the Department issued the Guidelines to implement the CVRA The Guidelines assigned CVRA-related obligations to prosecutors only after the initiation of federal charges Specifically the Guidelines stated that during the prosecution stage the responsible official should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of Guidelines Foreword Nevertheless the portion of the VRRA referenced in the OLC Infonnal Gui ance U.S.C had been repealed upon passage of the CVRA CA/Aronberg-0724 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations.398 The 223prosecution stage began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings.399 At the time the parties signed the NPA in September few courts had addressed victim standing under the CVRA Notably district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges.400 Two cases relied upon by the court in its February opinion 227Dean and its underlying district court opinion BP Products 227were decided after the NPA was signed The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation 227both pending as of the date of this Report 227show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter of debate.401 In a November letter to Attorney General William Barr a Congressional Representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to 223clarify that victims of federal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key pre-charging developments in a case such as non-prosecution agreements The CVRA litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply the lower courts had reached divergent conclusions and the Department had concluded that CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge OPR concludes that the subjects failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time the CVRA did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of federal criminal charges.403 Guidelines Art IV Under the Guidelines the term 223should means that 223the employee is expected to take the action or provide the sen-ice described unless there is an appropriate articulable reason not to do so Id Art II Id Art IV 2J Searcy Paletz WL at DSC June an inmate is not considered a crime victim for purposes of the CVRA until tlie government lias filed criminal charges United States Turner Supp 2d E.D.N.Y victims are not entitled to CVRA rights until the government lias filed charges but courts have discretion to take a more inclusive approach and United States Guevara-Toloso WL at E.D.N.Y May order sua sponte in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA See Wild F.3d at Courtney Wild Crime Victims Rights Reform Act of H.R Cong Cong Rec Violations of an unambiguous obligation concerning victims rights could result in a violation of the rules of professional responsibility For example in Attorney Griev CommnofMd v.Smith A.3d Md the Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that a prosecutor 2s failure to provide any notice to tire minor victim 2s foster family about the resolution of a sex abuse case during the ten months tire prosecutor was responsible for tire matter was a 223consistent failure amounting to 223gross negligence in tire discharge of the prosecutorial function that deprived the victim of his rights under the Maryland Constitution The court found violations of Maryland Rules of Professional i CA/Aronberg-0725 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations The prosecution stage began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings I At the time the parties signed the NP A in September few courts had addressed victim standing under the CVRA Notably district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges Two cases relied upon by the court in its February opinion-Dean and its underlying district court opinion BP Products-were decided after the NP A was signed The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation-both pending as of the date of this Report-show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter of debate In a November I letter to Attorney General William Barr a Congressional Representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to clarify that victims offederal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key pre-charging developments in a case such as non-prosecution agreements The CVRA litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en bane Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply the lower courts had reached divergent conclusions and the Department had concluded that CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge OPR concludes that the subjects failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time the CVRA did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of federal criminal charges Guidelines Art IV i Under the Guidelines the tenn should means that the employee is expected to take the action or provide the service described unless there is an appropriate articulable reason not to do so Id Art II i Id Art IV Searcy Paletz WL at D.S.C June an inmate is not considered a crime victim for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed criminal charges United States Turner Supp 2d E.D.N.Y victims are not entitled to CVRA rights until the goverrunent has filed charges but courts have discretion to take a more inclusive approach and United States Guevara-Tolosa WL at E.D.N.Y May order sua sponte in case involving a federal charge of illegal entiy after a felony com 225iction tl1e court detennined tlmt victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under tl1e CVRA See Yi/cl F.3d al Courtney Wild Crime Victims Rights Reform Act of H.R l6tl1 Cong Cong Rec Violations ofan unambiguous obligation concerning victims rights could result in a violation of the mies of professional responsibility For example in Attorney Griev Com1 no/Md S1ilh A.3d tl1c Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that a prosecutors failure lo provide any notice to tl1e minor victims foster family about the resolution of a sex abuse case during the ten montl1S tl1e prosecutor was:respo11Sible for tl1e matter was a consistent failure amounting to gross negligence in tl1e discharge of the prosecutotial function that deprived the victim of his rights under the Maryland Constitution The court found violations of Maryland Rules of Professional CA/Aronberg-0725 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM In Wild the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the VRA to the language of the VRRA noting that the VRRA 223clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge phase and opining that the government 223may well have violated the VRRA with regards to its investigation of Epstein As a predecessor to the CVRA the VRRA afforded vi dims various rights and services however it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court or by administrative complaint the CVRA the rights portion of the VRRA established the victims right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for the government However the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage of the CVRA Furthermore two of the VRRA requirements 227one requiring a responsible official to 223inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled and another requiring that a responsible official 223shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation 227may have applied to the Epstein investigation However the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part of the subject attorneys as the Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two requirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors Moreover the VRRA did not require notice to victims before the NPA was signed because at that point the case remained 223under investigation and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under the NPA until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June Once Epstein did so and the victims identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the remedy the USAO furnished the victims with appropriate notification OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was Intended to Silence Victims During her OPR interviews Villafana recalled more than one discussion in which she raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on September Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie however had no recollection of discussions about consulting victims before the NPA was signed and Menchel disputed Villafana 2s assertions OPR found only one written reference before that date explicitly raising the issue of consultation Given the absence of contemporaneous records OPR was unable to conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from ah affirmative decision made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about the NPA before it was signed Villafana 2s recollection suggests that Acosta Menchel and Sloman may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims about such negotiations OPR Conduct lack of diligence and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice The holding in Smith was based on Article of the Marsla nd Constitution and various specific statutes affording victims the right among others to receive various notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning case originating by indictment or information filed in a circuit court However both the underlying statutory provisions and significantly the facts are substantially different from the Epstein investigation In Smith the criminal defendant had been arrested and charged before entering a plea i I CA/Aronberg-0726 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I In Wild the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CjVRA to the language of the VRRA noting that the VRRA clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge I phase and opining that the government may well have violated the VRRA with regards to its investigation of Epstein As a predecessor to the CVRA the VRRA afforded victims various rights and services however it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court I or by administrative complaint Like the CVRA the rights portion of the VRRA established the victims right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for the government However the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage of the CVRA Furthermore two of the VRRA requirements-one requiring a responsible official to inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled and another requiring that a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation"-may have applied to the Epstein investigation However the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part of the subject attorneys as the Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two requirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors Moreover the VRRA did not require notice to victims before the NP A was signed because at that point the case remained under investigation and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under the NP1 until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June Once Epstein did so and the victims identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the remedy the USAO furnished the victims with appropriate notification OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was Intended to Silence Victims During her OPR interviews Villafana recalled more than one discussion in which she raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on September Acosta Sloman Menchel and Lourie however had no recollection of discussions about consulting victims before the NP A was signed and Menchel disputed Villafanas assertions OPR found only one written reference before that date explicitly raising the issue of consultation Given the absence of contemporaneous records OPR was unable to conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from an affirmative decision made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about the NP A before it was signed Villafana recollection suggests that Acosta Menchel and Sloman may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims about such negotiations OPR Conduct lack of diligence and conduct prejudicial to U1e administration of justice The holding in Smith was based on Article of the Maryland Constitution and various specific statutes affording victims the right among 0U1ers to receive various notices and an opportwlity to be heard concenling a case originating by indictment or infonnation filed in a circuit court However boU1 the underlying statutory provisions and significantly the facts are substantially different from U1e Epstein investigation In Smith the cri1ninal defendr,nt had been arrested and charged before entering a plea I CNAronberg-0726 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims onto prevent them from having input into the USAO 2s intent to resolve the federal investigation Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification decisions made after the NPA was signed on September the records contain little about the subjects views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed In a September email primarily addressing other topics as the plea negotiations were beginning in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed Villafana raised the topic of victim consultation with Sloman 223The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval which as CEOS Chief Oosterbaan politely reminded me is required under the law And the PBPD Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating 223fyi Villafana recalled that after she sent the email Sloman told her by telephone 223You can 2t do that now Villafana also told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed Sloman told her 2ve been advised that pre charge resolutions do not require victim notification Villafana also recalled a discussion with Acosta Menchel and Sloman during which she stated that she would need to get victims input on the terms being proposed to the defense and she was told 223Plea negotiations are confidential You can 2t disclose them None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about the USAO 2s CVRA obligations Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims during the preliminary 223general discussion phase of settlement negotiations moreover he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed Sloman told OPR that he 223did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA and did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case Sloman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of 223the cases that we handled filed cases Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter he did not 223think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with the victims prior to entering into the NPA Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafana that she not discuss the NPA with the victims He stated that everything the USAO did was try and get the best result as possible for the victims Once you step back and look at the whole forest you will see that If you look at each tree and say well you didn 2t do this right for the victim you didn 2t tell the victim this and that you 2re missing the big picture As noted tire Department 2s position at the time was that the CVRA did not require consultation with victims because no criminal charges had been filed In addition Villafana 2s reference to victim 223approval was inaccurate because the CVRA even when applicable requires only 223consultation with victims about prosecutorial decisions Villafana did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for the decision Villafana also told OPR that she recalled Menchel raising a concern that 223telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of tlieir desire to obtain damages from Epstein Villafana was uncertain of the date of the conversation but Menchel 2s presence requires it to have occurred before August i CA/Aronberg-0727 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or!to prevent them from having input into the USAOs intent to resolve the federal investigation Although the contemporaneous records provide some information abbut victim notification decisions made after the NP A was signed on September the records contain little about the subjects views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed In a September email primarily addressing other topics as the plea negotiations were beginning in earnest and almost three weeks before the NP A was signed Villafana raised the topic of victim consultation with Sloman The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval which as CEOS Chief Oosterbaan politely reminded me is required under the law And the PBPD Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating fyi Villafana recalled that after she sent the email Sloman told her by telephone You cant do that now Villafana also told OPR that shortly before the NP A was signed Sloman told her Weve been advised that pre charge resolutions do not require victim notification Villafana also recalled a discussion with Acosta Menchel and Sloman during which she stated that she would need to get victims input on the terms being proposed to the defense and she was told Plea negotiations are confidential You cant disclose them None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about the USAOs CVRA obligations Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to consult with victims during the preliminary general discussion phase of settlement negotiations moreover he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed Sloman told OPR that he did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA and we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case Sloman believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of the cases that we handled filed cases Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter he did not think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with the victims prior to entering into the NPA Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafana that she not discuss the NPA with the victims He stated that everything the USAO did was to try and get the best result as possible for the victims Once you step back and look at the whole forest you will see that If you look at each tree and say well you didnt do this right for the victim you didnt tell the victim this and that youre missing the big picture As noted the Departments position at the time was tliat the CVRA did not require consultation with victims because no criminal charges Iiad been filed In addition Villafafias reference to victim approval was inaccurate because the CVRA even when applicable requires only consultation with victims about prosecutorial decisions Villafana did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for tl1e decision Villafafia also told OPR tliat she recalled Menchel raising a concern tliat telling them about tl1e negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of tl1eir desire to obtain daniages from Epstein Villafafia was uncertain of the date oftl1e com,ersation but Menchels presence requires it to liave occur before August CA/Aronberg-0727 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Acosta told OPR that there was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was 223not a plea it 2s deferring in favor of a state prosecution Acosta said 223Whether or not victims views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time Acosta could not recall any particularjconcern that factored into the.decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA but he acknowledged to OPR 223Clearly given the way it 2s played out it may have-472 been much better if we had consulted with the victims As indicated the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed Villafaha raised the issue in writing to her supervisors in early September but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors affirmatively rejected Villafana 2s contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims ignored the suggestion or failed to address it for other reasons possibly because of the extended uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government 2s plea proposal OPR notes that its subject interviews were conducted-335 more than a decade after the NPA was signed and the passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed Although Villafaha recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims her supervisors did not and Menchel contended that Villafana 2s recollection is inaccurate Assuming the discussions occurred the timing is unclear Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed so a call with Villafaha about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely Any discussion involving Menchel necessarily occurred before August when it was unclear whether the defense would agree to the government 2s offer Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage there was little to discuss with victims To the extent that Villafana 2s supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult victims Villafana 2s recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors concerns about the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to consult with victims about a pre-charge disposition That belief accurately reflected the Department 2s position at the time about application of the CVRA Importantly OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims and Villafaha told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting to the agreement if they learned of it Because the subjects did not violate any clear and unambiguous standard in the CVRA by failing to consult with the victims about the NPA OPR concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct However OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government 2s treatment of the victims Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims a more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the government 2s goal to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect This was particularly important in a case in which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process Furthermore in this case consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the USAO greater insight into the victims willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein The consultation provision does not Villafaha told OPR that she was not aware of any 223improper pressure or promise 2made to Acosta in order to instruct her not to make disclosures to the victimfs i i CA/Aronberg-0728 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I Acosta told OPR that there was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was I not a plea its deferring in favor of a state prosecution Acosta said Wpether or not victims views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored into the.decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NP A but he acknowledged to OPR Clearly given the way its played out it may have been much better if we had consulted with the victims As indicated the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding victim consultation prior to when the NP A was signed Villafana raised the issue in writing to her supervisors in early September but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors affirmatively rejected Villafanas contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims ignored the suggestion or failed to address it for other reasons possibly because of the extended uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the governments plea proposal OPR notes that its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed and the passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed Although Villafana recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims her supervisors did not and Menchel contended that Villafanas recollection is inaccurate Assuming the discussions occurred the timing is unclear Sloman was on vacation before the NP A was signed so a call with Villafana about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely Any discussion involving Menchel necessarily occurred before August when it was unclear whether the defense would agree to the governments offer Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage there was little to discuss with victims To the extent that Villafanas supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult victims Villafanas recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors concerns about the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to consult with victims about a pre-charge disposition That belief accurately reflected the Departments position at the time about application of the CVRA Importantly OPR did not find evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims and Villafana told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting to the agreement if they learned of it Because the subjects did not violate any clear and unambiguous standard in the CVRA by failing to consult with the victims about the NP A OPR concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct However OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the governments treatment of the victims Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims a more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the governments goal to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect This was particularly important in a case in which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process Furthermore in this case consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the USAO greater insight into the victims willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein The consultation provision does not Villafafia told OPR that she was not aware of any improper pressure or promise made to Acosta in order to instruct her not to make disclosures to the victimfs CNAronberg-0728 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM require victim approval of the prosecutors plans but it allows victims the opportunity to express their views and to be heard before a final decision is made The lack of consultation in this case denied the victims that opportunity.408 IH I require victim approval of the prosecutors plans but it allows victims the opportunity to express their views and to be heard before a final decision is made The lack of consultation in this case denied the victims that opportunity I breach however Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end Thus the statement that the case was 223currently under investigation wasi literally true but the omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims of important information about the exact status of the investigation A The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the FBI in October January and May Describing the Status of the Case as 223Under Investigation The Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and available services during the 223investigative stage of a case During the Epstein investigation the FBI case agents complied with the agency 2s notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets to victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the victims by the FBI 2s Victim Specialist The FBI 2s notification process is independent of the USAO 2s The USAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the 223prosecution stage The FBI 2s Victim Specialist the VNS to prepare the October January and May letters a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the 223investigative stage The stock language of that letter however was generic and failed to communicate the unique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time The FBI Victim Specialist who sent the letters acted at the case agent 2s direction and was not aware of the existence of the NPA at the time she created the letters.410 Neither FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent by the FBI 2s Victim Specialist.411 According to Villafana 223The decision to issue the letters and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions Although the FBI case agents informed Villafana after the fact that the FBI 2s Victim Specialist sent her 223standard form letter Villafana had never reviewed an FBI-generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its contents.412 Villafana told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation sometime after July The case agent told OPR that she did not recall specifically directing the Victim Specialist to send a letter but acknowledged that 223she would come to us before she would approach a victim The case agent told OPR tliat she had no role in drafting the letters and believed them to be 223standard form letters Similarly the co-casc agent told OPR can 2t think that I 2ve ever reviewed any of them they just go from the victim coordinator Villafafla 2s lack of familiarity with the language in the FBI letters led to some inconsistency in the information provided to victims concerning their CVRA rights Beginning in the FBI provided to victims standard letters advising victims of their CVRA rights but which also noted that only some of the rights applied prc-cliargc During this period Villafana also crafted her own introductory letters to the victims to let them know of their CVRA rights and that the federal investigation 223would be a different process from the prior state investigation in which 223the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated by the Slate Attorney 2s Office Villafana told OPR tliat in a case in which she 223needled to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate questions she wanted to 223make sure tliat they feel like they can trust me Villafafla 2s letter itemized the CVRA rights but it not explain tliat those rights attached only after a formal charge had been made The letter was hand i I I CA/Aronberg-0730 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM I I I I I breach however Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal would end Thus the statement that the case was currently under investigation wasiliterally true but the omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NP A deprived the victims of important information about the exact status of the investigation A The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the FBI in October January and May Describing the Status of the Case as Under Investigation The Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and available services during the investigative stage of a case During the Epstein investigation the FBI case agents complied with the agencys notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets to victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the victims by the FBIs Victim Specialist The FBIs notification process is independent of the USAOs The USAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the prosecution stage The FBIs Victim Specialist used the VNS to prepare the October January and May letters a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the investigative stage The stock language of that letter however was generic and failed to communicate the unique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time The FBI Victim Specialist who sent the letters acted at the case agents direction and was not aware of the existence of the NPA at the time she created the letters Neither FBI case agent reviewedany of the letters sent by the FBIs Victim Specialist According to Villafana The decision to issue the letters and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions Although the FBI case agents informed Villafana after the fact that the FBIs Victim Specialist sent her standard form letter Villafana had never reviewed an FBI-generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its contents Villafana told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were collected for the CVRA litigation sometime after July The case agent told OPR that she did not recall specifically directing the Victim Specialist to send a letter but acknowledged that she would come to us before she would approach a victim The case agent told OPR that she had no role in drafting the letters and believed them to be standard fonn letters Similarly the co-case agent told OPR I cant think that Ive ever reviewed any of them they just go from the victim coordinator Villafafias lack of familiarity with the language in the FBI letters led to some inconsistency in the information provided to victims concerning their CYRA rights Beginning in the FBI provided to victims standard letters advising victims of their CYRA rights but which also noted that only some of the rights applied pre-charge During tltis period Villafana also crafted her own introductOI lcllers to tl1e v/ctims to let tl1em know of their CVRA rights and tliat the federal investigation would be a different process from the prior state investigation in wltich the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated by tl1e State Allomeys Office Villafana told OPR that in a case in wltich she neededJ to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate questions she wanted to make sure tliat they feel like they can trust me Villafana letter itemized the CVRA rights but it did not explain that those rights attached only after a fomial cliarge had been l3de The letter was liand CA/Aronberg-0730 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation I As described previously given Epstein 2s appeal to the Department and continued delay entering his guilty plea Villafana and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to comply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein By April Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was 223more and more likely As a result Villafana and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional investigative steps Among other actions Villafana her supervisors CEOS and the case agents engaged in the following investigative activities The FBI interviewed victims in October and November and between January and May and discovered at least six new victims In January CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and national perspective to the matter In January and February Villafana and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in victim interviews Villafana revised the prosecution memorandum to focus victims who are unknown to Epstein 2s counsel The USAO informed the Department 2s Civil Rights Division 223pursuant to USAM of the USAO 2s 223ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter involving Epstein and others Villafana secured pro bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being sought by Epstein 2s attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case.413 Villafana prepared a revised draft indictment Villafana sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government witness in exchange for that witness 2s testimony Even after Epstein 2s state plea hearing was set for June Villafana took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July in the event he did not plead guilty Villafana told OPR that from her perspective the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the case was 223currently under investigation was 223absolutely true Similarly the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the 223case was never closed and the investigation was delivered along with the FBI 2s own victim 2s rights pamphlet and notification letter to victims following their FBI interviews I According to the affidavit filed by Wild 2s CVRA-case attorney Edwards the pro bono counsel that Villafana secured assisted Wild in 223avoiding the improper deposition i I CA/Aronberg-0731 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the N:PA Was Signed the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Vi tims regarding the I Status of the Federal Investigation i As described previously given Epsteins appeal to the Department and continued delay entering his guilty plea Villafana and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to comply with the NP A and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein By April Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was more and more likely As a result Villafana and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional investigative steps Among other actions Villafana her supervisors CEOS and the case agents engaged in the following investigative activities The FBI interviewed victims in October and November and between January and May and discovered at least six new victims 1n January CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and a national perspective to the matter In January and February Villafana and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in victim interviews Villafana revised the prosecution memorandum to focus on victims who are unknown to Epsteins counsel The USAO informed the Departments Civil Rights Division pursuant to USAM of the USAOs ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter involving Epstein and others Villafana secured pro bona legal representation for victims whose depositions were being sought by Epsteins attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case Villafana prepared a revised draft indictment Villafana sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government witness in exchange for that witnes testimony Even after Epsteins state plea hearing was set for June Villafana took steps to facilitate the filing of federal charges on July in the event he did not plead guilty Villafana told OPR that from her perspective the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the case was currently under investigation was absolutely true Similarly the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the case was never closed and the investigation was delivered along with the FBIs own victims rights pamphlet and notification letter to victims following their FBI inte1views According to the affidavit filed by Wilds CVRA-case attorney Edwards the pro bona counsel that Villafana secured assisted Wild in avoiding the improper deposition i CA/Aronberg-0731 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM continuing The co-case agent also told OPR that as of the time of his OPR interview in the 223the case was open it 2s never been shut down OPR found no evidence that the FBI 2s victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead the victims about the status of the federal investigation The 223ongoing investigation language generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical to that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from August through the signing of the Nevertheless the FBI 2s letters omitted important information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an agreement he had reached with the USAO Victims receiving the FBI 2s letter would logically conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal prosecution CVRA petitioner Wild stated during the CVRA litigation that her 223understanding of this letter was that her case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against her Furthermore when the fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September eventually came to light the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims and the public 2s conclusions that the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark In sum OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was 223currently under investigation was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein The letters however risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion because the letters did not provide important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation Nonetheless OPR found no evidence that Villafana or her supervisors participated in drafting those letters or were aware of the content of the FBI 2s letters until the Department gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation The use of FBI form letters that gave incomplete information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein 2s victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims Despite the fact that the case was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations form letters continued to be sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances.415 The Department of Justice Inspector Generals Audit Report of the Department 2s Victim Notification System indicates that letters the FBI system generated in contained stock language for the notification events of 223Initial Investigative Agency and 223Under Investigation and letters generated in contained stock language for the notification events of 223Advice of Victims Rights Investigative and 223Under Investigation After Epstein entered liis guilty pleas the FBI sent a similar form letter requesting 223assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case to the two victims living outside the United States i CA/Aronberg-0732 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM continuing The co-case agent also told OPR that as of the time of his OPR interview in I the the case was open its never been shut down I i OPR found no evidence that the FBIs victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead the victims about the status of the federal investigation The ongoing in estigation language generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical to that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from August through the signing of the NPA Nevertheless the FBIs letters omitted important information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an agreement he had reached with the USAO Victims receiving the FBIs letter would logically conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal prosecution CVRA petitioner Wild stated during the CVRA litigation that her understanding of this letter was that her case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against her Furthermore when the fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September eventually came to light the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims and the publics conclusions that the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark In sum OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was currently under investigation was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein The letters however risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim frustration and confusion because the letters did not provide important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation Nonetheless OPR found no evidence that Villafana or her supervisors participated in drafting those letters or were aware of the content of the FBIs letters until the Department gathered them for production in the CVRA litigation The use of FBI form letters that gave incomplete information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epsteins victims and showed a lack of attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims Despite the fact that the case was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations form letters continued to be sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances The Department of Justice Inspector Generals Audit Report of the Departments Victim Notification System indicates that letters the FBI system generated in contained stock language for the notification events of Initial Investigative Agency and Under Investigation and letters generated in contained stock language for the notification events of Advice of Victims Rights Investigative and Under Investigation After Epstein entered his guilty pleas the FBI sent a similar form letter requesting assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case to the two victims living outside the United States CA/Aronberg-0732 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM IV ACOSTA 2S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY 2S I I I IV ACOSTAS DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEYS I strongly objected to the government 2s plan to notify victims of state proceedings which he described as 223highly inappropriate and an 223intrusion into state affairs when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr Epstein is being sentenced i Thereafter a time when the USAO believed Epstein 2s plea to be imminent 227Villafafia drafted and Sloman signed the December letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO 2s position that the victims identified in the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing The letter took an expansive view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings These sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr Epstein to plead to a state offense The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S Attorney 2s Office to forego Vc its legal obligations.416 The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and 223the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation the filing of charges and the acceptance of a plea Along with the letter Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his comments This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been completed Epstein would plead guilty in state court the parties would recommend months of imprisonment at sentencing and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims brought under U.S.C The draft victim notification letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a written statement to the State Attorney 2s Office When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents Sloman instructed Villafana who was preparing letters for transmittal to victims to 223Hold the letter During his OPR interview Sloman recalled that he had 223wanted to push the letter out but he 223must have had a conversation with somebody about whether the CVRA applied and based on that conversation he directed Villafana to hold the letter In his response letter to Acosta Lefkowitz contended that the government had misinterpreted both the CVRA and VRRA because neither applied to the 223public proceeding in this matter which will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state charges Sloman told Lefkowitz the USAO did not seek to 223federalize a state plea but simply informing the victims of their rights Sloman also addressed the defense attorneys objection to advising the victims that they could contact Villafana or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns by referencing the CVRA noting 223Again federal law requires that victims have the 221reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case CA/Aronberg-0734 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM strongly objected to the governments plan to notify victims of the state Joceedings which he described as highly inappropriate and an intrusion into state affairs when the identified individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr Epstein is being:sentenced I I Thereafter-at a time when the USAO believed Epsteins plea to be imminent-Villafana drafted and Sloman signed the December letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAOs position that the victims identified in the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing The letter took an expansive view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings These sections are not limited to proceedings in ajederal district court Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr Epstein to plead to a state offense The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S Attorneys Office to forego sic its legal obligations The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation the filing of charges and the acceptance of a plea Along with the letter Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Leflcowitz for his comments This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been completed Epstein would plead guilty in state court the parties would recommend months of imprisonment at sentencing and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims brought under U.S.C The draft victim notification letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a written statement to the State Attorneys Office When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents Sloman instructed Villafana who was preparing letters for transmittal to victims to Hold the letter During his OPR interview Sloman recalled that he had wanted to push the letter out but he must have had a conversation with somebody about whether the CVRA applied and based on that conversation he directed Villafana to hold the letter In his response letter to Acosta Lefkowitz contended that the government had misinterpreted both the CVRA and VRRA because neither applied to the public proceeding in this matter which will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state charges Sloman told Lefkowitz the USAO did not seek to federalize a state plea but is simply infonning the victims of their rights Sloman also addressed the defense attorneys objection to advising he victims that they could contact Villafafia or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns by referencing the CVRA noting Again federal law requires that victims have the reasonable right to confer with t11e attorney for the Gov nunent in this case I CA/Aronberg-0734 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Thereafter in his December letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other matters Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney 2s discretion the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein 2s state plea hearing I I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of the time and place of Mr Epstein 2s state court plea and sentencing hearing I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy In addition First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel I agree that Section applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to state crime We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law Tc will defer to the discretion of the State A ttorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes Emphasis added Acosta told OPR that he 223would not have sent this letter without running it by Sloman if not other individuals in the office Acosta explained that it was 223not for me to direct the State Attorney or for our office to direct the State Attorney 2s Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state 2s handling of the case but he told OPR 223that doesn 2t mean that they will not fulfill whatever obligation they have Let 2s not assume that the State Attorney 2s office is full of bad actors Sloman initially believed that 223the victims were going to be notified at some level especially because they had restitution rights under but his expectations changed after 223there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state since it was going to be a state case to decide how the victims were going to be notified Sloman told OPR he had been 223proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify the victims even though 223this was not a federal case but once the NPA 223looked like it was going to fall apart the USAO 223had concerns that if we gave them the victim notification letter and the deal fell apart then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you 2re entitled to monetary compensation OPR could not determine whether the State Attorney 2s Office notified any victims in advance of the June state plea hearing Krischer told OPR that the State Attorney 2s Office had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff but he was not aware of whether or how it was used in the Epstein case Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether victims were notified of the hearing nor whether state law required notification for the Sicilian stated in liis June letter to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department 2s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the civil damages recovery process but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue of victim notification and OPR found no oilier documentation indicating that Mandelker played a role in the deferral decision I i I I CA/Aronberg-0735 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM Thereafter in his December letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other matters Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State.Attorneys discretion the responsibility for notifying victims about Epsteins state plea hearing I I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of the time and place of Mr Epsteins state court pl a and sentencing hearing I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute I would note that the United States provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy In addition First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel I agree that Section applies to notice of proceedings and results ofinvestigations offederal crimes as opposed to the state crime We intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution as required by law We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings although we will provide him with the information necessary to do so if he wishes Emphasis added Acosta told OPR that he would not have sent this letter without running it by Sloman if not other individuals in the office Acosta explained that it was not for me to direct the State Attorney or for our office to direct the State Attorneys Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the states handling of the case but he told OPR that doesnt mean that they will not fulfill whatever obligation they have Lets not assume that the State Attorneys office is full of bad actors Sloman initially believed that the victims were going to be notified at some level especially because they had restitution rights under but his expectations changed after there was an agreement made that we were going to allow the state since it was going to be a state case to decide how the victims were going to be notified Sloman told OPR he had been proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify the victims even though this was not a federal case but once the NPA looked like it was going to fall apart the USAO had concerns that if we gave them the victim notification letter and the deal fell apart then the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that youre entitled to monetary compensation OPR could not determine whether the State Attorneys Office notified any victims in advance of the June state plea hearing Krischer told OPR that the State Attorneys Office had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff but he was not aware of whether or how it was used in the Epstein case Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether victims were notified of the hearing nor whether the state law required notification for the Sloman stated in his June letter to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision togeU1er wiU1 U1e Departments Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the civil damages recovery process but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue of victim notification and OPR found no 0U1er documentation indicating that Mandelker played a role in the deferral decision CA/Aronberg-0735 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM particular charges and victims at issue Once the hearing was scheduled Sloman told Villafana to contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims and on June she reported back to Sloman that Reiter going to notify victims about the plea Villafana recalled that she sent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation and Reiter said he would 223contact as many as he could The contemporaneous records do not show how many or which victims if any Reiter contacted and no victims were present in the courtroom No victim who provided information to OPR either in person or through her attorney recalled receiving notice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials At the time Epstein pled guilty in state court no one in the USAO knew exactly who if anyone Reiter or the State Attorney 2s Office had notified about the proceeding Accordingly Villafana who was present in the courtroom for the hearing had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims were agreement with the terms of this plea OPR considered whether Acosta 2s decision to defer to the State Attorney 2s Office the decision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epstein 2s plea hearing constituted professional misconduct OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question requiring notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled to attend unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings Furthermore as discussed previously OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not apply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed.420 Moreover the section of the VRRA requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is 223entitled to attend referred specifically to proceedings under U.S.C which at the time of the Epstein case had become part ofthe CVRA U.S.C a Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the federal investigation of the state plea hearing OPR concludes that his decision to defer to the State Attorney the decision to notify victims of the state 2s plea hearing and the responsibility for doing so did not constitute professional misconduct.422 Sloman replied 223Good In her written response to OPR Villafana stated requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist Plea Hearing Transcript at OLC CVRA Informal Guidance see also United States Guevara-Tolosp No WL at E.D.N.Y May in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry aftera felony conviction the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA In Wild the Eleventh Circuit panel noted that the petitioner argued 223only in passing that the government violated her CVRA right reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime however the court concluded tliis provision 223clearly applfies only after Ilie initiation of criminal proceedings Wild F.3d at The government 2s letter to victims following Epstein 2s guilty pleas informing them of the resolution of the case by state plea and the availability of relief also appear to satisfy the potentially applicable VRRA requirements to 223inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled and to 223provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to i I I CA/Aronberg-0736 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM particular charges and victims at issue Once the hearing was scheduled Slqman told Villafana to contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims and on June she reported back to Sloman that Reiter is going to notify victims about the plea Villafana recalled that she sent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investig ation and Reiter said he would contact as many as he could The contemporaneous records do not show how many or which victims if any Reiter contacted and no victims were present in the courtroom No victim who provided information to OPR either in person or through her attorney recalled receiving notice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials At the time Epstein pied guilty in state court no one in the USAO knew exactly who if anyone Reiter or the State Attorneys Office had notified about the proceeding Accordingly Villafana who was present in the courtroom for the hearing had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims were in agreement with the terms of this plea OPR considered whether Acostas decision to defer to the State Attorneys Office the decision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epsteins plea hearing constituted professional misconduct OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question requiring notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled to attend unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings Furthermore as discussed previously OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not apply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed Moreover the section of the VRRA requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is entitled to attend referred specifically to proceedings under U.S.C which at the time of the Epstein case had become part of the CVRA U.S.C a Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the federal investigation of the state plea hearing OPR concludes that his decision to defer to the State Attorney the decision to notify victims of the states plea hearing and the responsibility for doing so did not constitute professional misconduct Sloman replied Good In her written response to OPR Villafaiia stated I requested permission to make oral notifications lo U1c victims regarding the upcoming change of plea but U1c Office decided Uiat victim notification could only come from a state investigator and JeIT Slonian asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist Plea Hearing Transcript at OLC CVRA Infonnal Guidance see also United States Guevara-Tolosa No WL at E.D.N.Y May in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony com 225iction the court detennined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA In Wild U1c Eleventh Circuit panel noted Uiat the petitioner argued only in passing that U1c government violated her CVRA right to reasonable accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding involving the crime however U1e court concluded this provision clearly applf iesl only after U1e initiation of criminal proceedings 1-Vild F.3d at The govenunent letter to victims following Epsteins guilty pleas informing em of the resolution of the case by state plea and the availability of relief also appear to satisfy the pot ntially applicable VRRA requirements to inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which U1e victim niay be entiUed and to provide a victim the earliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to CA/Aronberg-0736 FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK PM
