DOJ-OGR-00021442.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page12 of 217
SA-266
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 266 of 348
obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter. 376
Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in
implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's
waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter
described the appointment of a special master, the special master's selection of an attorney to
represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement
to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that
Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him.
The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning
providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the
victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA:
In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make
available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of
the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so
long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to
be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim]
would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will
forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.
The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and
responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above
language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued
that there was "no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice
that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality
provisions of the [NPA]." In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafaña
revised the paragraph as follows:
In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and
two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement
between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected
by the special master] can provide further guidance on this issue, or
if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can
review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation].
On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been
filed in the state case.377

376
In the letter, Villafaña expressed frustration with defense counsels' claim relative to the December 19, 2007
letter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved by
defense counsel before being sent.
377
See Susan Spencer-Wendel, "Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Terms," Palm Beach
Post, Sept. 19, 2009.
240
DOJ-OGR-00021442