DOJ-OGR-00021315.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page143 of 258
SA-141
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 141 of 348

for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the “Florida Science Foundation” office
in West Palm Beach.182 In mid-November 2008, Villafaña learned that Epstein was on work
release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development
in an email, and asked, “Can I indict him now?”

On November 24, 2008, Villafaña sent defense attorney Black a letter, notifying him that
the USAO believed Epstein’s application to and participation in the work release program
constituted a material breach of the NPA. Villafaña reminded Black that she had “more than a
dozen e-mails” expressing the USAO’s “insistence” that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months,
and that her June 27, 2008 letter to counsel made clear that this meant “confinement for twenty-
four hours a day.” Villafaña noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word “imprisoned” into
the plea agreement, as he had agreed to do, but instead inserted the term “jail sentence.” Villafaña
told counsel:

The [USAO’s] Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based
upon its determination that eighteen months’ incarceration (i.e.,
confinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the
federal interest in Mr. Epstein’s crimes. Accordingly, the U.S.
Attorney’s Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated
the [NPA] by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day
for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment. The United States
will exercise any and all rights it has under the [NPA] unless
Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this
agreement.

According to Villafaña, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade’s work release
coordinator and reported back that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to
believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had been threatened
with legal action if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release.

On November 26, 2008, the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from
all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, which was still heavily involved in the
Epstein case, because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment.183 As a
result, Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to
Epstein.

Also on November 26, 2008, Black responded to Villafaña’s letter, acknowledging that
Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program, but denying
that Epstein was in breach of the NPA.184 Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release;
the NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate;

182 Michele Dargan and David Rogers, “Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ‘treated differently,’” Palm
Beach Daily News, Dec. 13, 2008.

183 The recusal was formally approved by the Department on December 8, 2008.

184 Black forwarded the email to Sloman, noting that Villafaña “is very concerned about anything Epstein does”
and that the defense team would “abide by” Sloman’s decision on the issue.

115

DOJ-OGR-00021315