UTSKRIFT 🔗
WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.150 --> 00:00:02.910
What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
2
00:00:03.009 --> 00:00:05.950
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
3
00:00:05.969 --> 00:00:09.269
back in to the letter back and forth between the
4
00:00:09.330 --> 00:00:13.429
DOJ and Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers. And this time we have
5
00:00:13.449 --> 00:00:19.250
the response by Alex Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz. Dear Jay,
6
00:00:19.589 --> 00:00:22.809
I'm writing not to respond to your asserted policy concerns
7
00:00:23.089 --> 00:00:27.000
regarding Mr. Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, which will be addressed by
8
00:00:27.019 --> 00:00:29.480
the U.S. Attorney. but the time has come for me
9
00:00:29.500 --> 00:00:32.649
to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in
10
00:00:32.689 --> 00:00:37.329
the investigation and negotiations. It's an understatement to say that
11
00:00:37.350 --> 00:00:40.149
I'm surprised by your allegation regarding my role because I
12
00:00:40.189 --> 00:00:43.329
thought we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute.
13
00:00:44.149 --> 00:00:46.350
I'm also surprised because I feel that I bent over
14
00:00:46.409 --> 00:00:49.170
backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement
15
00:00:49.189 --> 00:00:51.409
would have on Mr. Epstein and to make sure that
16
00:00:51.450 --> 00:00:55.990
you and he understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example,
17
00:00:56.030 --> 00:00:58.549
I brought to your attention the that one potential plea
18
00:00:58.890 --> 00:01:01.469
could result in no gain time for your client, I
19
00:01:01.509 --> 00:01:05.010
corrected one of your calculations of the sentencing guidelines that
20
00:01:05.049 --> 00:01:07.950
would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time
21
00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:11.159
in prison than you projected. I contacted the Bureau of
22
00:01:11.200 --> 00:01:14.239
Prisons to see whether Mr. Epstein would be eligible for
23
00:01:14.260 --> 00:01:16.659
a prison camp that you desired, and I told you
24
00:01:16.700 --> 00:01:19.359
my suspicions about the source of the press leak and
25
00:01:19.400 --> 00:01:23.280
suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continued to
26
00:01:23.319 --> 00:01:26.090
work with you in a professional manner even after I
27
00:01:26.129 --> 00:01:28.469
learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith for
28
00:01:28.510 --> 00:01:32.689
several weeks, thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that solicitation
29
00:01:32.730 --> 00:01:36.400
of minors to engage in prostitution was a registerable offense,
30
00:01:37.099 --> 00:01:39.159
and that you would fool our office into letting Mr.
31
00:01:39.239 --> 00:01:43.879
Epstein plead to a non-registerable offense, even now, when it's
32
00:01:43.920 --> 00:01:47.000
clear that neither you nor your client ever intended to
33
00:01:47.079 --> 00:01:49.659
abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed,
34
00:01:50.459 --> 00:01:53.430
I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first
35
00:01:53.510 --> 00:01:56.810
allegation that you raise is that I assiduously hid from
36
00:01:56.849 --> 00:01:59.390
you the fact that Bert Okeriz is a friend of
37
00:01:59.450 --> 00:02:03.349
my boyfriend and that I have a long-standing relationship with Mr. Okeriz.
38
00:02:04.370 --> 00:02:07.290
I informed you that I selected Mr. Okeriz because he
39
00:02:07.329 --> 00:02:09.949
was a friend and classmate of two people whom I respected,
40
00:02:10.310 --> 00:02:13.110
and I have never met or spoken with Mr. Okeriz
41
00:02:13.430 --> 00:02:16.250
prior to contacting him about the case. All of those
42
00:02:16.289 --> 00:02:19.500
facts are true. I still have never met Mr. Okeriz,
43
00:02:19.719 --> 00:02:22.039
and at the time that he and I spoke about
44
00:02:22.060 --> 00:02:24.500
the case... he did not know about my relationship with
45
00:02:24.539 --> 00:02:27.639
his friend. You suggest that I should have explicitly informed
46
00:02:27.659 --> 00:02:31.000
you that one of the referrals came from my boyfriend
47
00:02:31.379 --> 00:02:35.259
rather than simply a friend. So this isn't from Acosta himself,
48
00:02:35.699 --> 00:02:38.439
it's from Acosta's office, and it looks like it's from
49
00:02:38.919 --> 00:02:41.780
Marie Villafana. The name is redacted at the top though,
50
00:02:42.240 --> 00:02:47.319
so that's where we're at. Which is the term I used,
51
00:02:47.539 --> 00:02:50.500
but it's not my nature to discuss my personal relationships
52
00:02:50.699 --> 00:02:53.650
with opposing counsel. Your attacks on me and the victims
53
00:02:53.710 --> 00:02:56.689
establish why I wanted to find someone whom I could
54
00:02:56.710 --> 00:02:59.669
trust with safeguarding the victim's best interests in the face
55
00:02:59.710 --> 00:03:02.949
of intense pressure from an unlimited number of highly skilled
56
00:03:02.990 --> 00:03:07.349
and well-paid attorneys. Mr. Okerez was that person. One of
57
00:03:07.389 --> 00:03:10.750
your letters suggests a business relationship between Mr. Okerez and
58
00:03:10.770 --> 00:03:14.659
my boyfriend. This is patently untrue, and neither my boyfriend
59
00:03:14.719 --> 00:03:18.599
or I would have received any financial benefit from Mr.
60
00:03:18.719 --> 00:03:23.120
Okerez's appointments. Furthermore, after Mr. Okeriz learned more about Mr.
61
00:03:23.180 --> 00:03:26.860
Epstein's actions as described below, he expressed a willingness to
62
00:03:26.900 --> 00:03:30.300
handle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit, even
63
00:03:30.340 --> 00:03:34.020
to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to
64
00:03:34.039 --> 00:03:37.680
choose from, including the Potters firm, which was later selected
65
00:03:37.740 --> 00:03:42.030
by Judge Davis. You rejected those other options. You also
66
00:03:42.060 --> 00:03:45.610
allege that I
Load full transcript
improperly disclosed information about the case to Mr.
67
00:03:45.689 --> 00:03:49.000
Okeriz and I provided Mr. Okeriz with a bare-bones summary
68
00:03:49.030 --> 00:03:51.969
of the agreement terms related to his appointment to help
69
00:03:52.009 --> 00:03:54.849
him decide whether the case was something he and his
70
00:03:54.889 --> 00:03:58.590
firm would be willing to undertake. I did not provide Mr.
71
00:03:58.689 --> 00:04:01.710
Okeriz with facts related to the investigation because they were
72
00:04:01.750 --> 00:04:05.830
confidential and instead recommended that he Google Mr. Epstein's name
73
00:04:06.129 --> 00:04:10.449
for background information. When Mr. Okeriz asked for additional information
74
00:04:10.490 --> 00:04:14.250
to assist his firm in addressing conflicts issues, I forwarded
75
00:04:14.289 --> 00:04:17.069
those questions to you. and you raised objections for the
76
00:04:17.089 --> 00:04:20.819
first time. I did not share any further information about Mr.
77
00:04:20.920 --> 00:04:24.279
Epstein or the case. Since Mr. Okeriz had been told
78
00:04:24.319 --> 00:04:27.800
that you concurred in his selection out of professional courtesy,
79
00:04:28.339 --> 00:04:31.300
I informed Mr. Okeriz of the office's decision to use
80
00:04:31.339 --> 00:04:33.870
a special master to make the selection, and told him
81
00:04:33.889 --> 00:04:37.209
the office had made contact with Judge Davis. We had
82
00:04:37.269 --> 00:04:39.769
no further contact since then, and I have never had
83
00:04:39.810 --> 00:04:44.029
contact with Judge Davis. I understand from you that Mr.
84
00:04:44.129 --> 00:04:48.100
Okeriz contacted Judge Davis. You criticize the decision to do so,
85
00:04:48.480 --> 00:04:51.279
yet you feel that you and your co-counsel were entitled
86
00:04:51.300 --> 00:04:53.720
to contact Judge Davis to try to lobby him to
87
00:04:53.740 --> 00:04:57.540
select someone to your liking, despite the fact that non-prosecution
88
00:04:57.579 --> 00:05:01.180
agreement vested the office with the exclusive rights to select
89
00:05:01.199 --> 00:05:05.379
the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your
90
00:05:05.420 --> 00:05:10.480
allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section 2255 litigation is
91
00:05:10.519 --> 00:05:13.699
your earlier desire to have me perform the role of facilitator.
92
00:05:14.279 --> 00:05:17.579
to convince the victims that the lawyer's representative was selected
93
00:05:17.620 --> 00:05:20.860
by the office to represent their interests alone, and that
94
00:05:20.879 --> 00:05:24.379
the out-of-court settlement of their claims was in their best interest.
95
00:05:25.240 --> 00:05:27.500
You now state that doing the same things that you
96
00:05:27.540 --> 00:05:30.040
had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in
97
00:05:30.079 --> 00:05:34.189
civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges Detective
98
00:05:34.250 --> 00:05:38.110
Redacted's investigation that have already been submitted to the office
99
00:05:38.189 --> 00:05:40.829
on several occasions, and you suggest that I have kept
100
00:05:41.069 --> 00:05:44.470
that information from those who reviewed the proposed indictment package.
101
00:05:45.209 --> 00:05:49.110
Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and
102
00:05:49.170 --> 00:05:53.290
incorporated in the proposed indictment package, so your suggestion that
103
00:05:53.350 --> 00:05:56.250
I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false.
104
00:05:57.129 --> 00:05:59.670
I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that
105
00:05:59.709 --> 00:06:02.680
we must accept as true those parts of the Ricari
106
00:06:02.709 --> 00:06:06.259
report and witness statements that you like and we must
107
00:06:06.300 --> 00:06:09.000
accept as false those parts that you don't like. You
108
00:06:09.040 --> 00:06:11.959
and your co-counsel also impressed upon me from the beginning
109
00:06:11.980 --> 00:06:15.509
that the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems
110
00:06:15.550 --> 00:06:19.800
inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts
111
00:06:20.240 --> 00:06:24.899
that are unfavorable to your client. You complain that I
112
00:06:24.939 --> 00:06:28.680
forced your client and state attorney's office to proceed on
113
00:06:28.740 --> 00:06:32.839
charges they don't believe in. Yet, you want our office
114
00:06:33.139 --> 00:06:35.540
to inform the state attorney's office of facts that support
115
00:06:35.579 --> 00:06:38.310
the additional charge, nor do you want any of the
116
00:06:38.350 --> 00:06:42.949
victims of that charge to contact Ms. Belahovlik or the court. Ms.
117
00:06:42.970 --> 00:06:46.290
Belahovlich's opinion may change if she knows the full scope
118
00:06:46.310 --> 00:06:49.009
of your client's actions. You and I spent several weeks
119
00:06:49.060 --> 00:06:51.600
trying to identify and put together a plea to federal
120
00:06:51.639 --> 00:06:55.139
charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your
121
00:06:55.199 --> 00:06:59.160
letter now accuses me of manufacturing charges of obstruction of justice,
122
00:06:59.480 --> 00:07:03.779
making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws? When Mr.
123
00:07:03.819 --> 00:07:06.680
Lurie told you that those charges would embarrass the office,
124
00:07:07.100 --> 00:07:09.360
he meant that the office was unwilling to bend the facts.
125
00:07:09.709 --> 00:07:13.670
to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired prison sentence, a statement with
126
00:07:14.089 --> 00:07:17.649
which I agree. I hope you understand how your accusations
127
00:07:17.689 --> 00:07:20.560
that I imposed ultimatums and forced you and your client
128
00:07:20.600 --> 00:07:23.759
to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the
129
00:07:23.800 --> 00:07:27.300
true facts of the case.
As explained in letters from
130
00:07:27.319 --> 00:07:31.879
messengers redacted and redacted, the indictment was postponed for more
131
00:07:31.899 --> 00:07:34.569
than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other
132
00:07:34.610 --> 00:07:37.910
attorneys to make presentations to the office to convince the
133
00:07:37.990 --> 00:07:42.839
office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful. As you
134
00:07:42.879 --> 00:07:46.110
mention in your letter, a simple line USA handled the
135
00:07:46.149 --> 00:07:52.350
primary negotiations for the office and conducted those negotiations with you, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Lewis,
136
00:07:52.730 --> 00:07:55.730
and a host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners.
137
00:07:56.529 --> 00:07:59.129
As you put it, your group has a combined 250
138
00:07:59.129 --> 00:08:02.860
years experience to my 14. The agreement itself was signed
139
00:08:02.879 --> 00:08:06.920
by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience
140
00:08:06.939 --> 00:08:10.589
speaks for itself. you and I spent hours negotiating the terms,
141
00:08:11.050 --> 00:08:14.500
including when to use a versus, the, and other minutia.
142
00:08:15.360 --> 00:08:17.199
When you and I could not reach an agreement, you
143
00:08:17.240 --> 00:08:21.540
repeatedly went over my head, involving redacted, redacted, and redacted
144
00:08:21.699 --> 00:08:24.800
in the negotiations at various times. In any and all
145
00:08:24.819 --> 00:08:28.550
plea negotiations, the defendant understands that his options are to
146
00:08:28.589 --> 00:08:31.970
plead or continue with the investigation and proceed to trial.
147
00:08:32.750 --> 00:08:35.649
Those were the same options that were proposed to Mr. Epstein.
148
00:08:36.279 --> 00:08:39.779
and they are not persecution or intimidation tactics, Mr. Epstein
149
00:08:39.820 --> 00:08:42.179
chose to sign the agreement with the advice of a
150
00:08:42.220 --> 00:08:45.740
multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel. You also make much of
151
00:08:45.759 --> 00:08:47.539
the fact that the names of the victims were not
152
00:08:47.580 --> 00:08:51.250
released to Mr. Epstein prior to signing the agreement. You
153
00:08:51.279 --> 00:08:53.970
never asked for such a term. During an earlier meeting,
154
00:08:54.350 --> 00:08:57.210
where Mr. Black was present, he raised the concern that
155
00:08:57.250 --> 00:08:59.649
you now voice. Mr. Black and I did not have
156
00:08:59.690 --> 00:09:02.350
a chance to discuss the issue, but I had already
157
00:09:02.370 --> 00:09:05.169
conceived of a way to resolve that issue if it
158
00:09:05.220 --> 00:09:08.460
were raised during negotiations. As I stated, it was not,
159
00:09:09.039 --> 00:09:11.100
leading me to believe that it was not a matter
160
00:09:11.120 --> 00:09:13.820
of concern to the defense. Since the signing of the
161
00:09:13.860 --> 00:09:17.340
non-prosecution agreement, the agents and I have vetted the list
162
00:09:17.379 --> 00:09:20.240
of victims more than once. In one instance, we decided
163
00:09:20.279 --> 00:09:22.679
to remove a name because although the minor victim was
164
00:09:22.720 --> 00:09:26.159
touched inappropriately by Mr. Epstein, we decided that the link
165
00:09:26.179 --> 00:09:30.320
to payment was insufficient to call it prostitution. I've always
166
00:09:30.379 --> 00:09:33.169
remained open to a challenge to the list. So your
167
00:09:33.210 --> 00:09:35.509
suggestion that Mr. Epstein was forced to write a blank
168
00:09:35.549 --> 00:09:40.120
check is simply unfounded. Your last set of allegations relates
169
00:09:40.159 --> 00:09:43.139
to the investigation of the matter. For instance, your claim
170
00:09:43.200 --> 00:09:45.519
that some of the victims were informed of their right
171
00:09:45.559 --> 00:09:48.600
to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of the
172
00:09:48.679 --> 00:09:53.000
allegations against Mr. Epstein. This is also false. None of
173
00:09:53.019 --> 00:09:55.750
the victims was informed of the right to sue under
174
00:09:55.799 --> 00:10:00.190
Section 2025 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three
175
00:10:00.230 --> 00:10:03.529
victims were notified shortly after the signing of the non-prosecution
176
00:10:03.549 --> 00:10:07.169
agreement of the general terms of the agreement. You raised
177
00:10:07.240 --> 00:10:11.259
objections to any victim's notification and no further notifications were done.
178
00:10:11.820 --> 00:10:14.460
Throughout this process, you have seen that I have prepared
179
00:10:14.480 --> 00:10:17.750
this case as though it would proceed to trial. Notifying
180
00:10:17.769 --> 00:10:21.399
the witnesses of the possibility of damages claimed prior to
181
00:10:21.419 --> 00:10:24.320
concluding the matter by plea or trial would only undermine
182
00:10:24.360 --> 00:10:28.370
my case. If my reassurances are insufficient, the fact that
183
00:10:28.399 --> 00:10:30.669
not a single victim is threatened to sue Mr. Epstein
184
00:10:31.009 --> 00:10:34.610
should assure you of the integrity of the investigation. With
185
00:10:34.690 --> 00:10:36.950
regard to your allegation of my filing the Palm Beach
186
00:10:36.990 --> 00:10:40.289
Police Department's probable cause affidavit with the court knowing that
187
00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:43.159
the public could access it, I do not know to
188
00:10:43.220 --> 00:10:46.600
what you are referring. All documents related to the grand
189
00:10:46.620 --> 00:10:49.519
jury investigation have been filed under seal and the Palm
190
00:10:49.539 --> 00:10:53.120
Beach Police Department's probable cause affidavit has never been filed
191
00:10:53.139 --> 00:10:55.639
with the court. If in fact you are referring to
192
00:10:55.679 --> 00:10:58.980
the ex parte declaration of Joseph Rakari that was filed
193
00:10:59.019 --> 00:11:01.919
in response to the motion to quash the
grand jury subpoena,
194
00:11:02.600 --> 00:11:05.610
it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so
195
00:11:05.659 --> 00:11:07.730
no one should have access to it except the court
196
00:11:08.009 --> 00:11:10.929
and myself. Those documents are still in the court file
197
00:11:11.350 --> 00:11:13.970
only because you have violated one of the terms of
198
00:11:14.009 --> 00:11:17.000
the agreement by failing to withdraw Epstein's pending motion to
199
00:11:17.019 --> 00:11:21.019
intervene and to quash certain grand jury subpoenas. With respect
200
00:11:21.039 --> 00:11:24.240
to Redacted, I contacted her attorney, who was paid for
201
00:11:24.399 --> 00:11:27.289
by Mr. Epstein and was directed by counsel for Mr.
202
00:11:27.389 --> 00:11:30.529
Epstein to demand immunity, and asked only whether he still
203
00:11:30.590 --> 00:11:33.549
represented Redacted if he wanted me to send the victim
204
00:11:33.590 --> 00:11:36.789
notification letter to him. He asked what the letter would say,
205
00:11:36.809 --> 00:11:39.330
and I told him that the letter would be forthcoming
206
00:11:39.370 --> 00:11:42.000
in about a week and that I could not provide
207
00:11:42.039 --> 00:11:44.740
him with the terms. With respect to redacted status as
208
00:11:44.779 --> 00:11:47.799
a victim, you again want us to accept as true
209
00:11:47.980 --> 00:11:50.440
only facts that are beneficial to your client and to
210
00:11:50.480 --> 00:11:54.250
reject as false anything detrimental to him. Redacted made a
211
00:11:54.330 --> 00:11:57.990
number of statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence and
212
00:11:58.009 --> 00:12:00.549
a review of her record. A recorded statement shows her
213
00:12:00.590 --> 00:12:03.570
lack of credibility with respect to a number of statements.
214
00:12:04.169 --> 00:12:07.169
Based upon all the evidence collected, redacted is classified as
215
00:12:07.230 --> 00:12:10.460
a victim as defined by statute. Of course, that does
216
00:12:10.500 --> 00:12:13.840
not mean that redacted considered herself a victim or that
217
00:12:13.879 --> 00:12:16.759
she would seek damages for Mr. Epstein. I believe that
218
00:12:16.820 --> 00:12:20.370
a number of identified victims will not seek damages, but
219
00:12:20.409 --> 00:12:23.789
that does not negate their legal status as victims. I
220
00:12:23.830 --> 00:12:27.590
hope that you now understand that your accusations against myself
221
00:12:27.629 --> 00:12:31.029
and the agents are unfounded. In the future, I recommend
222
00:12:31.049 --> 00:12:34.100
that you address your accusations to me so that I
223
00:12:34.129 --> 00:12:37.360
can correct any misunderstanding before you make false allegations to
224
00:12:37.440 --> 00:12:40.409
others in the department. I hope that we can move
225
00:12:40.450 --> 00:12:43.950
forward with a professional resolution of this matter, whether that
226
00:12:44.070 --> 00:12:46.789
be by your client's adherence to the contract that he
227
00:12:46.830 --> 00:12:50.629
signed or by the virtue of a trial. Sincerely signed,
228
00:12:50.710 --> 00:12:55.659
redacted by redacted. And again, I'm thinking that this is
229
00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:01.600
Marie Villafana because that's who the argument was with. So
230
00:13:01.720 --> 00:13:04.700
that's going to conclude this portion. In the next episode,
231
00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:07.950
we're going to pick up with another response from by
232
00:13:08.009 --> 00:13:10.860
Jay Lefkowitz, and once again, he's going over the head
233
00:13:10.879 --> 00:13:16.019
of Ilifana and contacting Acosta directly. All the information that
234
00:13:16.070 --> 00:13:19.250
goes with this episode can be found in the description box.