Collaboration or Capitulation: The DOJ’s Colloquy With Epstein’s Lawyers Exposed (Part 6) (4/3/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to pick back up with the email chain with Marie Villafana and the prosecutors and Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers from the original prosecution in Florida. This email was sent by J. Lefkowitz to Jeff Sloeman and Alex Acosta with CSEED. This email was sent on November 28th, 2007. Dear Jeff, I received your email yesterday and was a little surprised at the tone of your letter given the fact that we spoke last week and I had thought it was a very productive meeting. I was especially surprised given that your letter arrived on only the second day back to work after the Thanksgiving holiday and yet your demands regarding timing suggest that I have been sitting on my hands for days. You should know that the first time I learned about judge redacted selection of Pothurst and Joseph's Berg and indeed the first time I ever heard their

1:02names was in our meeting with you on Wednesday of last week. Nevertheless, I have now been able to confer with my client and we have determined that the selection of Pothurst and Joseph Berg are acceptable to us. Reserving, of course, our previously stated objections to the manner in which you have interpreted the section 2255 portion of the agreement. We do, however, strongly and emphatically object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims without fair opportunity to review and the ability to make objections to this letter. It is completely unacceptable that you would send it without our consideration. Additionally, given that the US Attorney's office has made clear it cannot vouch for the claims of the victims, it would be incendiary and inappropriate for your office to send such a letter. Indeed, because it is a certainty that any such letter would immediately be leaked to the press, your actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting spurious civil litigation directed at him. We believe it's entirely unprecedented

2:08and in any event inappropriate for the government to be the instigator of such lawsuits. Finally, we disagree with your view that you are required to notify the alleged victims pursuant to the Justice for All Act of 2004. First, US Code 18 Section 2255 The relevant statute under the Non-Prossecution Agreement for the settlement of civil remedies does not have any connection to the Justice for All Act. Section 2255 was enacted as part of a different statute. Second, the Justice for All Act refers to Restitution and Section 2255 is not a restitution statute. It is a civil remedy. As you know, we had offered to provide a restitution fund for the alleged victims in this matter. However, that option was rejected by your office. Had that option been chosen, we would not object to your notifying the alleged victims at this point. At this juncture, however, we do not accept your contention that there is a

3:10requirement that the government notify the alleged victims of a potential civil remedy in the case. Accordingly, for all the reasons we have stated above, we respectfully and firmly object to your sending any letter whatsoever to the alleged victims in this matter. Furthermore, if a letter is to be sent to these individuals, we believe we should have a right to review and make objections to that submission prior to it being sent to any alleged victim. We also request that if your office believes that a must send a letter to go to the alleged victims who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein has entered his plea. This letter should then come from the Attorney Representative and not from the government to avoid any bias. As you know, Judge Star has requested a meeting with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the Section 2225 component of the agreement we're hopeful that this meeting will take place as early as next week.

4:13Accordingly, we respectfully request that we postpone our discussion of sending a letter to the alleged victims until after that meeting. We strongly believe that rushing to send any letter out this week is not the wisest matter in which to proceed. Given that Mr. Epstein will not enter his plea for another few weeks, time is clearly not of the essence regarding any notification to the identified individuals. Thanks very much, Jay. The next email was sent by Jeff Slomin and it was sent to Jay Lefkowitz. The United States has a statutory obligation, Justice for All Act of 2004, to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion. Tomorrow will make one full week since you were formally notified of the selection. I must insist that the vetting process come to an end,

5:13therefore unless you provide me with a good faith objection to Judge Redacted Selection by COB tomorrow. November 28th, 2007, I will authorize the notification of the victims. Should you give me the go-ahead on Podhurst and Joseph Berg's selection by COB tomorrow, I will simultaneously send your draft of the letter. I intend to notify the victims by letter after COB Thursday, November 29th. Thanks, Jeff. Next email from Jeff Slomin to Jay Lefkowitz with Alex Acosta, C. Seed. Jay, please accept my apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but I was a little under the weather yesterday. Hope that you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Regarding the issue of due diligence concerning Judge Redacted Selection, I'd like to make a few observations. First, Guy Lewis, is known for some time that Judge Redacted was making reasonable efforts to secure Redacted. Podhurst and Bob Joseph Berg for the assignment. In fact, when I told you of Judge Redacted Selection during our meeting last Wednesday, November 21st,

6:18you and Professor Dershowitz seemed very comfortable and certainly not surprised with the selection. Podhurst and Joseph Berg are no strangers to nearly the entire Epstein defense team, including Guy Lewis, Lilianne Sanchez, Roy Black, and apparently Professor Dershowitz, who said he knew Mr. Joseph Berg from law school. Second, Podhurst. And Joseph Berg have longstanding stellar reputations for their legal acumen and ethics. It's hard for me to imagine how much more vetting needs to be done. Next email sent by Marie Villafana to Gerald left court and CC to Jeff Sloeman and Andrew Laurie. Jerry, as per your discussion with US Attorney Acosta, I have attached the office's written counter proposal. If you have any questions regarding the terms, please do not hesitate to call. Next email from Marie Villafana to John McMillan, Andrew Osterban, Adrian Kirkendall, and Jason Richards. Hi all, here's a revised version of the indictment.

7:24We're still doing some proofreading, but I wanted to get some feedback before I start sending it through the chain of command. Can you let me know what you think? Next email is from Andrew Osterban to Marie Villafana and this email was sent September 11th, 2007. We'll do when you plan to submit it. Next email from Marie Villafana to Andrew Osterban on September 11th, 2007. Probably sometime tomorrow, just to Karen Atkinson to get a first read, then it will go to Rolando and then up to Jeff. I'm still shooting for a 925 for an indictment date, assuming they don't take our counter counter offer. In case you haven't heard yesterday, one of Epstein's lawyers, countered with a 15 month in jail, followed by 15 months community confinement, aka home confinement, and we counter countered with 20 months in jail, followed by 10 months community confinement. Here is the agreement that was sent out. Thanks Drew. Next email was sent

8:28by Andrew Osterban to Marie Villafana. This email was sent on September 11th, 2007. I had not heard the counter offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's understandable. Let me know how it goes. Thanks Marie. Next email from Marie Villafana to Andrew Osterban, September 13th, 2007. I drew sorry to bother you, but the plea negotiations are getting fast and furious. Epstein's lawyers are fixated on this idea of a victim's fund rather than having the girls filed separate 2255 actions. I know that the reason that they want to do this is not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to keep this stuff out of the public court files, but in some way it will help the girls too. Do you know anything about how the fund in Alaska has worked out, did all the victims consent, or did the court just do it? Thank you for your help. I also turned in the indictment package to my immediate supervisor today, so I expect some edits back from her before it goes higher up the chain. If you add any thoughts,

9:33please let me know. Next email from Andrew Osterban to Marie Villafana, and this one was sent on September 13th, 2007. Thanks for more information Marie. I'll get the details on the bomb arrangements from the prosecutors and get back to you tomorrow. I believe the girls agreed to the arrangement, but I'll confirm that. I should have the indictment reviewed by then as well. Next email from Marie Villafana to Andrew Osterban. I drew, I tracked down the AUSA in Alaska, and he's sending me the trust agreement, and I'll let you know how things go in the morning. Next email from Marie Villafana to someone whose hands redacted and CC to Andrew Lowry. Jay, it was nice seeing you again, Andy and I talk with Alex and Jeff. We're all satisfied in principle with the agreement, but the office is uncomfortable with the recommended federal charge. Specifically, we're concerned about the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special

10:33maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and we have no evidence of any assault occurring either on Mr. Epstein's plane or offshore from his residence. We're hoping that you can find an alternative federal statute that can be used. I will also wait to hear from Jack Goldberger to discuss logistics. Thank you, Marie Villafana. Next email from Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Villafana, Andy, meant to copy you on my first attempt to respond to Marie. We appreciate the courtesy of today's meeting and your agreement and Alex's. We understand the concerns you are raising and will work over the next few days to come up with a mutually acceptable solution. I'll speak with you no later than Monday, and in the interim, we can come up with a solution we will be in touch with you. Next email from Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Villafana on September 13th, 2007. Marie, are you free to speak at 9 a.m. tomorrow? Next email from Marie Villafana to Jay Lefkowitz, September 13th, 2007.

11:39Hi Jay, yeah, I am. I've been spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for Mr. Meaters. Do you want to take a look at US code 18 403 US code 18 1512 D and 47 USC 223 A 1 and B? And we can talk about them tomorrow. I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an airplane. I just want to make sure that there is factual basis for the plea that the agents can confirm. I'm not sure exactly where I'll be tomorrow morning. So is it all right if I call you? Have a good morning. The next and final email from Jay Lefkowitz to Marie Villafana sounds good. I will be at home. Let's talk at 9 a.m. Already thinking about the same statutes. Look forward to speaking in the morning. Best Jay. All right folks, so that completes this thread. But when I tell you that we haven't even scratched the surface yet, I mean it. We have so many documents to go over that it's not even funny. So we're going to continue to eat this elephant one bite at a time. And when we have

12:44slow news days like today, we're going to have more files added to the catalog. As for this one, well, all the information that goes with it can be found in the description box.