Emails and letters reveal potential conflict‑of‑interest and prosecutorial interference in Jeffrey Epstein civil and criminal matters

2s 28. oo. 30. 31. BZ: 33. 34. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP “[t]here is too great a chance of an appearance of impropriety.” See Tab 28, September 26, 2007 Email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz. The following day, Ms. Villafana relayed that, and asked us to respond to, the very first concern raised Mr. Ocariz, which was “how are they going to get paid” and whether “there is any cap or other limitation on attorney’s fees that [Epstein] will pay in the civil case.” See Tab 30, September 27, 2007 Email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz. Ms. Villafana clearly contemplated that Mr. Epstein would be paying for Mr. Ocariz at his “hourly rate” to represent the alleged “victims” against Epstein even “if all [the] girls decide they want to sue.” Jd. When the defense complained of Ms. Villafana’s undisclosed conflict-of-interest in selecting her boyfriend’s friend to prosecute civil claims against Mr. Epstein on behalf of her undisclosed list of purported “victims,” Ms. Villafana later argued that Mr. Epstein had no right to complain because “the Non-Prosecution Agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select the attorney representative.” See Tab 18, December 13, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana. Shortly after being notified, however, United States Attorney Acosta removed Mr. Ocariz from consideration, and requested an amendment to the Non Prosecution Agreement. In response to the many complaints about Ms. Villafana’s misconduct and violations of the United States Attorney’s Manual, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel characterized her as “unsupervisable.” Contrary to the express agreement of United States Attorney Acosta that the federal government would not interfere in the administration of any state sentence, FAUSA Sloman continued to try to deny the right of the State to issue work release and/or gain time by stating that Mr. Epstein must “make a binding recommendation that the Court impose” a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail. See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sloman sent the FBI to meet with the state sex-crimes prosecutor in an attempt to secure her commitment to oppose a work release option. FAUSA Sloman Attempts to Thwart Discovery On October 31, Mr. Sloman emailed Mr. Epstein’s counsel, confirming that “I understand that the plea and sentence will occur on or before the January 4th [2008] date.” See Tab 41, October 31, 2007 Email from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). On November 5, despite Mr. Sloman’s having sent that email just one week before, after learning that the defense had begun to question women on their “list,” Mr. Sloman wrote Mr. Epstein’s attorneys demanding that his plea and sentencing in the State case now be moved up to November 2007. See Tab 2, November 5, 2007 Letter from J. Sloman. Mr. Sloman further demanded in the letter that Mr. Epstein’s attorneys “confirm that there will be no further efforts to contact any victims” until the victims are represented by counsel. Jd. As the women were all adults, there could be no lawful justification for Mr. 7 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012166