DOJ-OGR-00021407.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, A333 3536038, Page235 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 233 of 348 A, September — October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential Impeachment In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafafia on September 24, 2007, defense attorney Lefkowitz asked Villafafia to “do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming public.”””’ Villafafia forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach manager noting that, “I don’t 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 [FOJA]” and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media about the NPA, “this is the State Attorney[’]s show.””> Acosta added, “In other words, what more does he want?” Villafafia 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 26, 2007, to talk “about who we can tell and how much.”3°° Also on September 24, 2007, Villafafia 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 relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255] will work.” Villafafia 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.” Villafafia 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 26, 2007, Villafafia emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the victims about the NPA: “Can you give me a call... Iam meeting with the agents and want to give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls.” Villafafia 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. Villafafia told OPR that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be 221 Villafafia had assured Lefkowitz that the NPA “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.” 298 Acosta told OPR that he believed that the NPA “would see the light of day” because the victims would have to “hear about [their § 2255 rights] from somewhere” and “given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA’d.” 228 Lourie told OPR that the § 2255 provisions of the NPA “that 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’s no . . . issue with the fact that they were going to get that information.” 300 OPR was unable to determine whether the call took place. 207 DOJ-OGR-00021407