Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
right where we left off with the Marievilla Fauna emails,
with the other prosecutors down in Florida, and with Jeffrey
Epstein's lawyers as they try to hammer out the plea deal.
Email sent on September seventeenth, two thousand and seven, by
Rolando Garcia to Marie Villafauna, Marie, where are we in
the plea negotiation? The next email we have was sent
by Marievillafauna to Alex Acosta, Andrew Lorie, Rolando Garcia and
CC two Karen Atkinson and John McMillan. Hi'all, I think
that we may be near the end of our negotiation
with mister Epstein, and not because we have reached a resolution.
As I mentioned yesterday, I spent about twelve hours over
the weekend drafting informations, changing plea agreements, and writing factual proffers.
I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from them yesterday,
which never arrived. At that time, they were leaning towards
pleading only to stay charges and doing all of the
time in state custody. Late Last night I talked to
Jay Lefkowitz, who asked about Epstein pleading to two twelve
month federal charges with half of his jail time being
spent in home confinement pursuant to the guidelines. I told
him that I had no objection to that approach, but
in the interest of full disclosure, I did not believe
that mister Epstein would be eligible because he will not
be Zone A or B. This morning, Jay called and
said that I was correct, but if we could get
mister Epstein down to fourteen months, then he thought that
he'd be eligible. My response have him plead to two
separate informations. On the first one he gets twelve months imprisonment.
On the second he gets twelve months with six served
and home confinement to run consecutively. I just received an
email asking if mister Epstein could do twelve months in
prisonment instead. As you can see, mister Epstein is having
second thoughts about doing jail time. I would like to
send Jay an email stating that if we do not
have assigned agreement by tomorrow at five, negotiations will end.
I've selected tomorrow at five because it gives them enough
time to really negotiate an agreement if they're really serious
about it, and if not, it gives me one more
day before Jewish holiday to get witnesses lined up for
Tuesday's grand jury appearance. Then I plan to present the indictment,
and it gives the office sufficient time to review the
indictment package. Do you concur Next email from Marie Villafauna
to Rolando Garcia, Alex Acosta, Andrew Lori, and Karen Atkinson
and John McMillan were c seed hi All. I just
spoke with Jay Lefkowitz. He reports that as of now
they're leaning back towards pleading only the stay charges with
a non prosecution agreement. They're doing some legal research and
talking with the state, and Jay thinks that they should
have a proposed agreement by late tonight or early tomorrow morning.
I'm going to send them our last version of the
non prosecution agreement so that he has a template to
work from. Jay as my number in case I need
to go home early and any questions come up. As
soon as I know something, I'll pass it along. Next
message was from Alex Acosta to Marie Villafana, Rolando Garcia,
and Andrew Lorie with Karen Atkinson and John McMillan c Seed.
Please make sure that they know it's only a draft
and that we still need a proved final The form
and language may need polishing. Next Email from Marie Villafana
to alex Acosta. Absolutely, there were a lot of problems
with their last attempt. They tried to reopen all the
loopholes that I had sewn shut. Next Email from Jay
Lefkowitz to Marievillafana. Marie, please look this over and see
if we can identify any issues that we need to
discuss in greater detail. Since you can't go to own
only one count of obstruction, but eighteen would become about
fifteen with gain time, I've made a proposal of a
total of twenty four month sentence based on to informations.
This would include a period of home detention. We can
then follow with an alternative to what we discussed just
now that might plead to one count of fifteen twelve
serve twelve months plus supervised release, which would be one
year of home detention if we can make that work,
followed by two years of probation in the state on
the state charges, with the first six months being community control.
Next email from Marie Villafauna to Andrew Lorii and Rolando
Garcia with Karen Atkinson C Seed. Andy and Rolando please
review below so you understand my frustration. This document is redacted,
different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to.
He has it written as sixteen months imprisonment followed by
eight months of federal supervised release. He wants us to
recommend an improper calculation of the guidelines, and he wants
to waive the PSI so he can keep all the
information confidential. I've already told Jay that the PSI language
and other language in his agreement was unacceptable to our office.
I'll send back a plea agreement that reads consistent with
what Jay represented Andy, but I don't believe that this
will be resolved by Tuesday unless they come down here
and we have a group contract writing session with the
State Attorney's Office and the decision makers. Next DML was
sent by Marievilla Fauna to Andrew Lawry and Rolando Garcia
with Karen Atkinson c. Seed. He also removed any promise
to plead to a registerrable offense and the promise related
to the girls damages claims. Next EML from Marievilla fauna
to j Lefkowitz, Hi jy. I was hoping there would
be things for me to read this morning, but I'll
try to remain patient. I believe that there are only
two types of agreements that would apply to this case.
One a plea agreement to a federal charge or charges,
and to a non prosecution agreement, which is really a
deferred prosecution agreement because the defendant agrees that if he
violates the agreement, the US can prosecute him. A plea
agreement is part of the court file. It's not accessible
online via pacer, but someone can go to the clerk's
office and obtain a copy. A non prosecution agreement would
not be made public or filed with the court, but
it would remain part of the case file. It probably
would be subject to a Freedom of information access request,
but is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process.
On the obstruction charges, many of the facts I included
in that first profit were a hypothesized based upon our
discussions and the agent's observations of Miss Groff. We still
need to interviewer to confirm the accuracy of those facts,
and on a second account, we could rely on the
incident where mister Repstein's private investigators followed Redacted's father forcing
them off the road, or if there is something more
recent related to any Grand Jerry subpoenas, we could consider that.
Hope this helps Marie Villa Fauna. The next email that
was sent was sent by Marie Villa Fauna and it
was sent to Andrew Lourie and c Seed Rolando Garcia.
I just got their redline version. I'll forward it to you.
Here are the issues that Rolando and I specifically discussed
with them and rejected that they have reinserted into the agreement.
One we agreed to recommend that no PSI be prepared.
Two they have converted it into an aba plea, as
though we wouldn't notice. Three they want us to agree
the incorrect calculation of the guidelines. Four instead of agreeing
that the girls can sue Epstein, they cannot sue them
and instead are bound to apply to a trust administered
by the state court. Jane and I have addressed this
at least three times, and it keeps appearing in his versions.
They changed the state charge that he has to plead
guilty to a non registerable offense and that he doesn't
have to plead to the charge until after he finished
serving his federal sentence. Six. They want us to not
oppose the request for a prison camp designation. Seven. They
have readded paragraphs seventeen through nineteen, all of which are
addressed by paragraph two. There are other problems too, but
these are the highlights. This is not a good faith negotiation.
Next email sent by Marie Villafanna to Andrew Lourie and
Rolando Garcia. We're still waiting for a redline of the
agreement that they seemed happy with yesterday. Barry and Lana
and Epstein's attorneys are coming to our office on Monday
to finalize everything, with the plan of getting them at
least reigned on Monday afternoon. They tried to drag it
into Tuesday, and I said no. Next email from Andrew
Lourie to Marievilla Fauna, Can you send me a copy
of the last thing you sent them? And this was
sent on September nineteenth. Next email by Marievilla Fauna two
Andrew Lourie, FYI. The Palm Beach Post reported the whole
deal in today's paper and claim to have a federal
source and a spy in Epstein's camp. Next email from
Jay Lefkowitz to Marievilla Fauna. Good job. A few thoughts.
I would eliminate the first sentence of paragraph two. Is
there another way to deal with the issue in paragraph three?
Without this? In the plea agreement? Do we need paragraph ten?
Is in paragraph eleven sufficient without ten? Is it our
place to include paragraph thirteen in this agreement? I think
it belongs in the state agreement and it looks out
of place here. I think you should include Roy or
another member of the Florida Bar on the plea agreement
so we are not slowed down at the last minute
by pro hawk stuff. The next email we have is
from Marievilla Fauna to Andrew Lourie and Rolando Garcia, with
and Atkinson as the CC Andy and Rolando. This is
my proposed response below. I know that you can keep
saying he's going to plead, and he will plead if
we cave on everything, but I really don't think that
mister Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until
he sees the indictment and shows up in mad court,
preferably in flip flops in reviewing the indictment package. If
you would like to maintain flexibility for the future. We
could indict mister Epstein just on count one, the conspiracy charge,
and if he won't plead to five years at that time,
supersede with the remaining counts and just go to trial.
But we gave them an initial deadline of early August
with a twenty four month sentence. We are now seven
weeks later, and we are just spinning our wheels. Jay.
The same problems that I emailed you about on Sunday
and discussed yesterday with you in Rolando, and that you
discussed with Andy are still here. Paragraphs four, seven, eight, nine,
eleven have specifically been discussed and rejected. Paragraphs seventeen and
nineteen have been addressed in paragraph two and will not
be repeated. You've removed our paragraph four regarding the application
of the sentencing guidebindes an eighteen appeal waiver, both of
which are specifically required by the Offices Appellet Division. You
have replaced mister Epstein's plea to a registrable offense to
one that does not require a registration, and you have
again delayed the plea until after mister Apstein completes his
federal prison sentence Rolando, and I specifically told you that
was unacceptable, and Barry Krisher also informed us that he
will not keep his case open for that period. You
also have inserted that this is a rule eleven C
one C plea which binds the judge, which you know
we have specifically rejected. There are other smaller changes that
the office probably cannot agree to, but the bigger issues
are these. If you or your client insists on these,
there can be no plea agreement. All were going to
wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing
with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
All the information that goes with this episode can be
found in the description box.