DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page245 of 258
SA-243
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 243 of 348

informed victims “of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their
allegations against Mr. Epstein”:

None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under
Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims
were notified shortly after the signing of the [NPA] of the general
terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim
notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout
this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though
it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility
of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial
would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient
the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein
should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.

On December 14, 2007, Villafaña forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter
previously sent to the defense, along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer;
Villafaña’s transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line, “The letters you requested.” One of
the draft letters to Krischer, to be signed by Villafaña, was to advise that the USAO had sent an
enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed “list
of the identified victims and their contact information, in case you are required to provide them
with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law.”319 The second draft letter
to Krischer, for Acosta’s signature, requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel’s
allegations that the State Attorney’s Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and
sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender
registration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to Krischer.320

A few days later, in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications, Villafaña
emailed Sloman, stating, “[Is there] anything that I or the agents should be doing?” Villafaña told
Sloman that “[the FBI case agent] is all worked up because another agent and [a named AUSA]
are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims [in
an unrelated matter]. We seem to be in a Catch 22.”321 OPR did not find a response to Villafaña’s
email.

In their December 14, 2007 meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their
lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December 17, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press
their objections to the USAO’s involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta

319 The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification letter sent to the defense on
December 6, 2007, except that it contained a new plea date of January 4, 2008.

320 Moreover, the letters were not included in the publicly released State Attorney’s file, which included other
correspondence from the USAO. See Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein, available
at http://sa15.org/stateattorney/NewsRoom/indexPR htm.

321 OPR was unable to locate any records indicating that such allegations had ever been referred to OPR.
Villafaña told OPR that “Catch 22” was a reference to instructions from supervisors “[t]hat we can’t go forward on”
filing federal charges and “I was told not to do victim notifications and confer at the time.”

217
DOJ-OGR-00021417