Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
look at a letter that was sent to the Florida
Assistant US Attorney by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, and they're
basically bullying the Florida office because they won't play ball
with Epstein's attorneys and give Epstein what he wants. So
once again, it goes to show you that it wasn't
alex Acosta. Now, I know people want to keep blaming him,
and he did play his part. He didn't have the
courage to stand up to these people, But the truth is,
the real decision was made by DOJ Brass. So we're
going to continue to provide those receipts so that all
of you get a full hdview of how it all
went down. So let's dive in response letter to FAUSA
dated May nineteenth, two thousand and eight, and in May nineteenth,
two thousand and eight letter to Jay Lefkwitz SDFL First
Assistant US Attorney redacted, provided what purported to be a
summary of the events that have occurred during the investigation
of mister Epstein. Mister Adacted's letter is fraught with inconsistencies,
false and misleading characterizations, and outright falsehoods. The comparison below
between the false assertion in mister Redacted's letter and what
actually transpired is only the tip of the iceberg. We
respectfully submit that mister Redacted's letter alone demonstrates the degree
to which the record of facts have been distorted, and
these distortions have permeated this unprecedented investigation. Number one independent
and denovo review mister Adacted's letter, we obliged your request
for an independent de novo review of the investigation and
facilitated such a review at the highest levels of the
Department of Justice. The truth CEO's review concluded in May
of two thousand and eight, was neither independent nor denvo.
CEO's review was not independent. Redacted, who conducted the review
on behalf of CEO's, had already reviewed the prosecution memo
on this matter eight months earlier. During a meeting with
defense counsel at the US Attorney's Office in Miami in
September of two thousand and seven, he opined that he
believed the prosecution that he would try the case myself. Indeed,
mister adacted acknowledges that mister adacted had previously opined on
this matter, stating this particular attack on this statute US
Code eighteen, section twenty two forty two B had been
previously raised and thoroughly considered and rejected by CEOs prior
to the execution of the deferred prosecution agreement in September
of two thousand and seven. The statute mister adacted referred
to section twenty four to twenty two B lies at
the heart of the Epstein investigation. Thus, according to mister redacted,
mister adacted was tasked with reviewing his own prior decision
regarding a applying the key statute under which the SDFL
proposed prosecuting mister Epstein. The defense immediately raised concerns regarding
the non independence of the review when told that it
would be mister Redacted tasked with providing the review, but
was told that mister Redacted rendered his prior opinion he
was not really up to speed on the facts. CEO's
review was not the novo. By letter dated May fifteenth,
two thousand and eight, four days before mister Redacted's letter,
mister Adacted advised mister Lefkowitz that CEOs reviewed the matter
only for abuse of discretion. The question we sought to
answer was whether US Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion
if authorization or if authorized prosecution in the case ce
TAP thirty eight May fifteenth, two thousand and eight letter
from d redacted. Mister Acosta would not be abusing his
discretion if he decided to pursue such a course of action,
and page five, mister Acosta would not be abusing as
prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of mister Epstein.
For the factual record of its abuse of discretion review,
CEOs relied on the very same prosecution memo that it
had already reviewed in rendering its prior opinion, stating, as
you know, our review of this case is limited, both
actually and legally. We have not looked at the entire
universe of facts in the case, nor did CEOs review
any facts related to the irregular provisions in the deferred
prosecution agreement or the numerous complaints of prosecutorial misconduct, both
of which are inextricably intertwined with impropriety of the investigation.
Two Notification of witnesses Mister Adacted's letter, Mister Addacted dismissed
the totality of the defense objections to the appropriate notification
the SDFL proposed to send to its witnesses, stating merely
that you objected to victims being notified of time and
place of Epstein's State Court sentencing hearing. The truth, The
defense engaged in days of negotiation and made fourteen separate
substantative objections to the unprecedented notification letter that mister Adacted
threatened to send to an undisclosed list of victims. The
eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted
by an appeal to AAG Fisher. Among those substantative objections,
which related to far more than the time and place
of the State sentencing hearing were sending, the letter would
contravene the government's commitment to take no position regarding potential
claims of government witnesses. So let me just stop right here.
And whoever this mister Fisher is, he should be on
the clock, why would he halt the appeal? This letter
cited to an inapplicable statute, the Justice for All Act
in two thousand and four as its justification for being sent.
A USA. Acosta later conceded that the citation to this
statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. The letter wrongly
advised all recipients that mister Epstein would be required to
register as a sexual predator for the remainder of his life.
The letter amounted to an invitation to civil litigation against
mister Epstein, advising recipients that they had the right to
seek civil damages from mister Epstein. In an underlined instruction,
stated that if they chose an attorney other than the
one chosen by the government, they would be required to
pay his fees, but if they chose the government's choice,
mister Epstein would be required to pay the fees. Three
mischaracterization of our arguments Mister adacted's letter. Mister Adapted's letter
misleadingly characterizes our substantative defense of the government's investigation as
the investigation merely produced evidence of relatively innocuous sexual conduct
with some miners who, unbeknownst mister Epstein, misrepresented their ages
the truth. We never made such a claim. To the contrary,
We argue that Swarren's statements we have taken of the
alleged victims demonstrate that law enforcement has presented versions of
their testimony that are necessarily sensationalized and fictionalized. We presented
evidence that mister Epstein routinely and daily received massages from adults.
Only a small percentage of the messuses turned out to
be miners. The majority of those miners interviewed by law
enforcement admitted to lying directly to Epstein about their ages,
not unbeknown to Epstein, and inventing further false details to
substantiate their lies. Indeed, the civil attorney for several of
these women admitted at his recent press conference that they
lied to mister Epstein about their ages. Numerous witnesses testify
that mister Epstein asked that all messuses be over the
age of eighteen. Further, the evidence is undisputed that mister
Epstein's assistant scheduled the massages, and mister Epstein did not
know which messuses his assistance had scheduled on aarticular day
until the massage took place. We admitted that there was
sexual conduct, and argued not that it was innocuous, as
mister redacted alleges, but that it was mostly mister Epstein's
own self pleasuring, which did not satisfy the requisite federal
element of criminal sexual conduct, which in turn defined by
state law. These are important distinctions and show that mister
Redacted has misrepresented the record about the most basic part
of our defense. Four. Redacted's demands an unrealistic deadline to
comply with an agreement he unilaterally modifies mister Adacted's letter.
Unless mister Epstein complies with all of the terms and
conditions of the deferred prosecution Agreement as modified by the
US Attorney December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter to
miss Sanchez by close of business on Monday, June two
thousand and eight, the SDFL will elect to terminate the agreement.
The truth the deferred prosecution agreement was never mind by
the US Attorney Acosta December nineteenth, two thousand and seven letter. Oddly,
mister Acosta acknowledged this on page four of his May
nineteenth letter, where he writes that mister Acosta proposed this
modification and that mister Lefkowitz rejected these proposals. Thus, mister
Redacted is threatening to terminate the deferred prosecution agreement unless
mister Epstein complies with the unilateral modification that mister Redacted
concedes was never agreed to by defense counsel orchestrating the information,
plea and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement within
the extremely limited two week time frame imposed by mister
redacted June second, two thousand and eight deadline would have
been difficult enough. More importantly, as explained below, the SDFL
has refused to provide the defense with information it requires
to enable mister Epstein to comply with the additional plea
and sentencing requirements of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, let alone
by the June second deadline arbitrarily imposed by mister adacted.
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement requires mister Epstein to plead guilty
to and be sentenced for an additional offense which requires
that he register as a sex offender in different places.
In his May nineteenth, two thousand and eight letter, mister
adacted describe the additional charge to which mister Epstein required
to plead guilty under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement as procurement
of miners to engage in prostitution or solicitation of miners
to engage in prostitution. The former is an offense for
which mister Epstein would be required to register, but one
for which the state is no evidence to charge mister Epstein,
and the SDFL refuses or is unable to provide evidence
that it claims it has. The latter requires no registration,
but it is the offense which over and over again
Misredacted insisted upon including in the deferred prosecution agreement and
in one which the State believes is appropriate. The inconsistency
between the description of the offense required by the SDFL
and the elements of an offense that can be justified
on the facts of this case, and the sdfl's requirement
that the offense be a registrable one has created substantial confusion.
As a result of this confusion, in December of two
thousand and seven, both the defense and the State requested
that the SDFL provide the factual allegations to enable mister
Epstein and the State to create a truthful, factual recitation
of a registrable offense required by the deferred prosecution agreement,
but to date the SDFL has failed to do so.
Without any explanation, Mister adacted refuses to provide the requested
factual allegations, which the state cannot furnish, and now demands
a two week deadline to comply. Thus, mister adacted has
unreasonably imposed a deadline with which he himself has made
it impossible for mister Epstein to comply. Waiver of appeal
to assist in Attorney General Fisher. Mister Redacted's letter, the
SDFL provided you with thirty days to appeal the decision
to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher,
and you chose to fore go on appeal to aag
Fisher the truth Mister Acosta told in August seventeenth deadline,
acknowledging that there were serious issues about the case that
needed to be discussed, and scheduled a meeting with the
defense four September seventh, two thousand and seven. At the
September seventh, two thousand and seven meeting with redacted in attendance,
the government dismissed the defense objections and said as September
twenty first, two thousand and seven, deadline to finalize a
non prosecution agreement or the defense would face and already
drafted fifty two page indictment purportedly identifying forty miners with
a guideline range of one hundred and eighty eight months
facing misredacted threatened draconian indictment without the claimed offer of
the right to raise objection in an appeal to aag fisher,
the defense chose to negotiate an agreement to defer prosecution
to the state, an agreement without precedent and fraud with
substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. All right,
we're going to wrap up right here, folks, and in
the next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
we're going to pick up where we left off with
a letter from Epstein's legal team slamming the DOJ Number six.
The SDFL did not defer to the state Redacted's letter,
the SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the state
the length of incarceration. The truth the SDFL neither deferred
to the state nor even discussed with the state the
length of mister Epstein's incarceration. In a letter to the
defense Criminal Division, Chief redacted for rejected the sentence contemplated
by the state's plea agreement writing that the federal interest
will not be vindicated in the absence of a two
year term of state imprisonment see Tab. Forty, August third,
two thousand and seven, email from redacted. Of course, this
position is contrary to section nine two three to one
D of the US Attorney's Manual, indicating that the result
of the state prosecution is presumed that have vindicated the
federal interest. It is understandable, therefore, that mister redacted might
want to retreat from it now. Indeed, the final deferred
Prosecution Agreement restricts the state court judge from exercising any
of his rightful discretion, and to specifically prohibit the judge
from offering probation, community control, or any other alternative in
lieu of incarceration. Seven suggestion of additional state plea Mister
Redacted's letter the parties considered as suggested by the defense,
of plea to state charges encompassing Epstein's conduct ce tab
I May nineteenth, two thousand and eight, letter from redacted,
Page two. The truth It was the government and not
the defense, that suggested a plea to state charges to
resolve the federal investigation. Rected proposed declining prosecution in favor
of the state. Although mister Epstein in the State Attorney's
office had already reached the plea agreement in August of
two thousand and seven, mister adacted and Ausa Redacted warned
that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally unless his counsel ie,
not the U S Attorney's Office, sought more stringent conditions
to the state's proposed plea agreement. These stringent conditions included,
among other things, the two year prison term demanded by
mister adacted and to charge requiring him to register as
a sex offender Number eight. All identified victims will be
put in the same position as if Epstein had been
tried mister Adacted's letter, the agreement provides for a method
of compensation for the victims such that they would be
placed in the same position as if Epstein had been
convicted of one of the enumerated offenses set forth in
Title eighteen US Code, Section twenty two to fifty five.
The truth mister addactid continues to mischaracterize the highly irregular
provision of the deferred prosecution agreement. The SDFL did not
merely attempt to preserve the compensation rights of those it
identified as victims. It attempted to create compensation rights for
those it identified without imposing on them the burden of
providing or proving that they were in fact victims under
section twenty two to fifty five. In the deferredive Prosecution agreement,
the SDFL required mister Epstein to waive the right to
contest liability under US Code eighteen, section twenty two to
fifty five as to a list of individuals that the
SDFL would not disclose to mister Epstein until after he
was sentenced, and to pay for an attorney to secure
compensation under section twenty two fifty five for those undisclosed individuals,
or if they decided to ssue mister Epstein. Section twenty
two to fifty five ordinarily provides individuals with a right
to recover minimum guaranteed damages of one hundred and fifty
thousand without having to prove actual damages only if one
they were victims of an enumerated federal offense, including offenses
under US Code eighteen, section twenty four to twenty two
and twenty four to twenty three to two. There were
miners at the time of the offense, and most importantly, three,
they were personally injured as a result of the offense.
The defense is confirmed examples of women who testified that
they were not victims of mister Epstein and suffered no
personal injury. These women were nevertheless on the list of
victims identified by the government. In fact, when confronted with
testimony of a woman who denied both being a victim
and incurring personal injury, mister addacted actually acknowledged such testimony
to justify inclusion of that woman on the government's list. However,
misredacted then challenged her own witness's credibility. For this reason,
it is false to state that these identified individuals are
in the same position that they would have been had
Epstein been convicted at trial. Had there been a trial,
mister Epstein would have had the right to confront these
individuals through cross examination. Any individual that did not establish
that she was a minor victim of conduct that satisfied
each element of an enumerated statute under section twenty two
to fifty five, or that she suffered personal injury, would
not qualify for any treatment under section twenty two to
fifty five. However, under the deferred prosecution agreement, as an
identified individual on the government's list. The same individual would
nevertheless be entitled to engage an attorney paid for by
mister Epstein to recover one hundred and fifty thousand dollars
of damages from mister Epstein under section twenty two to
fifty five without ever alleging any injury. In fact, the
defense was told that the only question mister Epstein would
be permitted to ask before paying the girls is have
you ever met mister Epstein. Thus, the deferred prosecution agreement
places identified individuals in a far better position than they
would be if mister Epstein were convicted at trial nine.
Assignment of right to select legal representation Mister Redacted's letter.
Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the
twenty to twenty five provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to
assign its responsibility to select the attorney representative for the
alleged victims to an independent third party. The truth that
such an assignment was sdfl's unilateral decision is false. Before
the SDFL decided to assign selection of the attorney representative
to an independent third party, Ausa Redacted had already proposed
an attorney representative she had proposed a local products liability lawyer,
Umberto Oquerries, and claimed that he had been recommended by
a good friend in the appellate division. Misredacted's account was misleading,
as it omitted that this good friend was her living
boyfriend and that mister Okerriz was his former law school roommate.
When we discovered this independently, we objected. Only then did
the SDFL propose assigning the selection process to an independent
special master and agreed to amend the deferred prosecution agreement. Thus,
while it may be true that the SDFL assigned its
selection responsibly to avoid the appearance of favoritism, it did
not do it unilaterally, but rather only after Epstein uncovered
the office misleading disclosure and apparent conflict of interest. Ten
timetable for moving forward mister Adacted's letter on February twenty eighth,
two thousand and eight, I sent you an email setting
forth a timetable for moving forward in the event that
CEOs disagreed with your position, and that time is now.
The truth mister adacted provides only part of the history
of the case. In order to justify his improper actions,
he had stated he would close the investigation if CEOs
told him to. However, CEOs, at our first contact, said
that under no circumstances did they see that as their role.
They said they would only advise on an abuse of
discretion standard, making the outcome a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, in
response to the February twenty fifth email, which attempted to
establish a schedule to limit the entire review process, the
defense has repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with
the investigation and would therefore seek higher review. Mister Leftquit's
email mister Acosta directly on February twenty ninth, two thousand
and eight, Mister redacted responded to mister left Quit's email
to mister Acosta, stating that mister redacted was acting out
of frustration. But please be assured that it has not,
and never has been this office intent to interfere or
restrict the review process for either mister Epstein or cs.
I leave it to you and CEOs to figure out
how best to proceed and will await the results of
that process. As stated above, CEOs determined that it would
not review any of the defense's objections, and as to
the remainder of those objections its review would be limited,
contrary to mister Acosta's assurances, which left the need supplemented
by the defense subsequent request for a more thorough review
of critical issues by others at the Department of Justice.
Mister adacted reimposition of the all bit modestly extended timetable
was an obvious attempt in violation of his February twenty
ninth agreement to thwart the request made by the defense
to the Deputy Attorney General to complete the review process
that mister Acosta had promised. Number eleven Delay mister Adacted's letter,
in a section entitled delay, Mister Adacted states that the
SDFL again agreed to accommodate Epstein's request to appear in
state court for plea and sentencing on January fourth, two
thousand and eight the truth. Curiously, mister redacted fails to
mention correspondence from the US Attorney stating that delay of
that date would be inevitable as the defense's raise serious
questions about the propriety of the prosecution. Strikingly, in that
same section, mister adacted claims that the agreement did not
contemplate a staggered plea deal and sentencing, despite quoting three
sentences earlier from the agreement staggered requirement that Epstein plead
and be sentenced by October twenty six, and begin serving
that sentence no later than January fourth, two thousand and eight.
We are, like most attorneys, seeking department review without access
to the USAO prosecution summaries or other submissions to the department.
Given the substantial issues that have been raised in this
and other submissions, we request that you conduct a denovo
review that goes beneath the face of any conclusions being
advert by the USAO. Instead, we seek a review that
is based on the transcripts of witness testimony themselves, so
that the reviewer can make an independent decision not adversely
affected by conclusions that over and over have proven witness
by witness, allegation by allegation to be inaccurate and unwarranted,
and not an appropriate basis for the exercise of federal
prosecutorial authority. And this letter was not signed by anybody,
but it was sent by Kirk lan Ellis and Jay Lefkowitz.
So as you can see, the battle for Jeffrey Epstein's
plea deal was so contentious that it's not even funny,
and I think that people have only begun to peel
back the layers of just how nefarious the whole entire
thing was. So we're going to continue looking at these
unsealed letters, especially when it comes to this back and
forth between the Department of Justice and Epstein's legal team,
because I think that gives us quite a window into
what was going on in real time, and it also
provides a lot of context for a lot of the
issues that we've talked about, but we didn't have all
the information. But now all those ducks are getting put
in a row, and I think it's rather obvious that
the fix has been in from the very beginning. All
of the information that goes with this episode can be
found in the description box.