Jeffrey Epstein’s Real Lawyer Was Jeffrey Epstein

Support us with a one-time donation

by Ellie Leonard, Blue Amp Media Contributing Editor

I spend most of my time digging through the Epstein Files, looking for clues, and finding receipts to prove or disprove narratives in order to fully solve this case and find justice for the hundreds of survivors abused by Epstein and his friends. Part of this process is transcribing thousands of emails between Epstein and people like former Harvard President Larry Summers, attorney Alan Dershowitz, former Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

In so doing, I’ve begun to learn Epstein’s tells, i.e. the things that set his writing apart from anyone else in his administrative circle, such as assistants, lawyers, and Ghislaine Maxwell. Think of it as a fingerprint, something that shows up again and again only in Epstein’s writing, the way he ends sentences, the lack of emotion when it’s something he wants, the over-discussion when he becomes frantic or too interested in news articles about himself or Donald Trump. The same things show up over and over again, to the point where you can identify the writer without the signature quite easily.

Something you start to notice pretty quickly is Epstein’s use of punctuation, lack of capitalization, random spacing. Two commas. A comma followed by a period. A period, three spaces, another period, maybe two, five more spaces… You get the idea.

Transcribing Epstein’s emails, as an editor, is a little hair-raising. But when I put on my investigative hat, it’s actually really helpful. It tells me whether I’m dealing with Epstein or someone else, or if Epstein’s pretending to be someone else.

We’ll come back to that.

But it also puts into question things like the Larry Nassar letter, which showed up in the 12/23 batch of files from the DOJ. It didn’t necessarily fit Epstein’s MO, though now we’re dealing with handwriting vs. typing. Texting and emailing is likely to have more errors just in its nature of speed and informality, whereas a handwritten letter is usually more intentional.

So then we have to look to other writing samples, of which we have very few outside of Epstein’s chalkboard ramblings, left on the island for investigators to discover after his arrest. Some of it lines up, the way he writes D’s and P’s with a kind of flick across the top. But not everything.

For example, there is a lot of debate over Epstein’s signature, which typically looks like this:

Whereas from the Nassar letter it looked more like this:

Now, one can debate that Epstein was trying to impress Nassar, whom he appeared to want to bond with in some strange sex-offender-bro way. And thus the eloquent wording, and thus the legible signature, lest Nassar forget who Epstein was, and all his Little Black Book prestige.

But in my nightly scroll of Epstein files I came across a photo of a two-page letter, taken on one of his many Persian rugs at the New York townhouse. It appeared to be from Epstein’s lawyers, addressed to Alex Acosta, the prosecutor in Epstein’s 2008 sweetheart deal that landed him in the Palm Beach lockup for 13 months, but with privileges that allowed him to leave the jail 12 hours every day to work at his office for the “Florida Science Foundation,” which was neither scientific nor philanthropic.

Share

Alex, the letter said, I wanted to have a one on one conversation re yesterdays call. I wanted to give you time to confirm for yourself what Lily [Sanchez] had represented regarding the New York Times. I’m sure you now realize that contrary to the characterization of David weinstein’s actions as merely third party hearsay, I wanted you to know that we have proof positive of what transpired. Proof positive of a breach of the U.S. attorneys manual, proof positive of a breach of the local rules of conduct , , I can’t represent to you we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a 6e violation, but clearly enough facts that would support a charge. . Alex, David discussed details of our plea negotiations, [personal security and house arrest], after repeatedly voicing the offices concern with the Palm beach post editorial. He discussed the theory of the case, and talked about the multiple charging statutes, even including the 1591 statute, of sex trafficking - that is patently unfair to Mr. Epstein.

This is in reference to a letter sent to former Acting Attorney General, Mark Filip, from Ken Starr in May of 2008, alleging that federal prosecutors had leaked information about Epstein’s case to the New York Times, via attorney David Weinstein.

Frankly, as you heard yesterday, Ken , to put it mildly, is outraged . He is a man of great faith both in his religion and his unwavering belief in the system of justice. HE has two bibles, the king james version and the us attorneys manual. He believes in the system, and in this case he believes it has failed ,miserably. His fear is that the Bob (Seniors) review , is merely designed to be a rubber stamp for the office.

This is in reference to attorney Ken Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General, and Epstein’s bosom friend. It is unclear what is meant by the “Bob (Seniors) review.”

Share

Regarding our proposal , I believe we have taken a highly principled position. Yesterday, I appreciated you telling me of ,as you put it , your thought process. You looked at the case And said , what would we get if we achieved a conviction. We would have registration, we would have a jail sentence and the victims would be allowed to sue under 2255.

Here the attorney references U.S. Code 2255, which pertains to “civil remedy for personal injuries,” i.e. settlements for survivors.

I recognize that would be your very thought process , with every plea negotiation. Had you had the statutes that were clearly in the heartland of prosecution, Had Epstein had trafficked in women , had Epstein been caught in the most common of stings. You would have asked the same questions. However, the new facts in this case, facts unknown to you at the time of that thought process , have dramatically changed the landscape . . At the time , you were unaware of Maries misrepresentations , you were unaware of Maries disregard for published procedures, you were unaware of the wildly exaggerated list of victims. You were unaware of the missing Brady [impeaching] info. You were certainly unaware of the most troubling breach of prosecutorial conduct -weinsteins interactions with the new York times.

The attorney is referencing Marie Villafaña, who served as lead federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida handling the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s sex crimes. She drafted the original indictment and pushed for an aggressive prosecution. Yet the attorney appears to be trying to discredit Villafaña.

That aside , BASED ON THE NEW FACTS, AND THE LAW We have researched every case previously brought.. there are none that comes close.. this isn’t the case in which attempt such a stretch. the initial decision needs to be revisited WE don’t need to debate whether or not the petite policy actually applies, and its prominent appearance and than disappearance in the documents. I would encourage you however to seriously reconsider our proposal. Not only as an advocate but as a colleague, I strongly urge you to accept it . You have my word that, if it is accepted this will bring total closure to all outstanding and extremely problematic ancillary issues--. I’m sure you understand.

The attorney is asking Alex Acosta to revisit the case in an attempt to give Epstein a better plea bargain.

I have not sent you a letter as I ‘d prefer not to begin creating a record , that might lead to months and months of contentious argument. . that being said , I fully realize that you will have to explain such a big change to your two main constituents--the FBI and the people whose back you have to protect. The people that worked on this case. They would be assured that You would be getting much more than the state is still willing to accept. - The victims would be made whole. I’m confident that our proposal is both principled,and fair.

Here the attorney is saying that should Alex Acosta give Epstein a better plea deal, he’ll have to explain it to everyone who worked hard to indict Epstein in the first place. “But it’s okay, because the victims will be completely healed from their trauma as a result of this great deal.”

The conduct is state conduct, you recognize that the fed statutes would have to be tortured to fit. I fear that , if this is not resolved quickly, the recent issues re misconduct with the press will draw us into a tornado of trouble. And frankly I don’t think that would be in either of our interests. ( I think this is a middle ground. ,

i.e. “Do it, and do it quickly.”

If Alan Dershowitz, and Ken , are able to convince either Bob Senior or Washington- I have more confidence in Washingtons openess-that the fed statutes don’t apply, we would then be asking for a TOTAL (declaration) ( if he talks about appeal.. waivers, I think that is a non-starter but does he want to send you a proposal set of facts, to which we would have to stipulate. ) . I realize that emotions are running high on both of our sides. But if You take a step back, which I again strongly urge you to do. I think you’ll agree that our current proposal , while not what we would ultimately want , nor what you would have preferred is currently the best overall solution, for both of us. I think it is fair and just.

i.e. “You’re still putting us out by giving Epstein any sentence at all, but we will somehow pull through if you give us what we want.”

Id like you to think about it, and I suggest we postpone setting up any firm meeting date until tomorrow , after you have had ample time to review the current situation and circumstances and reconsider , the possibility of getting this, complex matter firmly and totally. behind us.

The attorney leaves no signature.

Leave a comment

It’s just a typical letter from the defense asking for the prosecution to lighten up based on their belief that the lead prosecutor has broken the rules, and is pushing a misinformation campaign about their lowly client, the innocent Mr. Epstein.

But here’s the kicker.

Look at the punctuation. Look at the spacing. Look at the spelling and strange legalese. No apostrophes. No capitalization. Weird dashes and periods that don’t make any sense.

Because this letter wasn’t written by Epstein’s legal team. It was written by Epstein himself. And what started as Marie Villafaña’s 82-page memo, including 60 indictments for sex crimes, turned into a plea deal of just two counts, one for procuring a minor for prostitution, and one for solicitation of prostitution. And it was all signed on June 30, 2008, just over a month after Ken Starr sent his letter to AG Mark Filip, after which Epstein wrote the letter found in his New York home.

I don’t know if this letter was sent to prosecutors in Epstein’s 2008 case. But if it was, he impersonated a lawyer in order to reduce the terms of his plea deal. And it worked. Marie Villafaña was discredited. And after hearing the accusations from 36 underage girls, Alex Acosta handed Epstein a sentence that allowed him to continue making money, continue abusing girls (while wearing an ankle monitor), to spend his time in an unlocked cell with access to an office both inside and outside the jail, and even to hire jail staff to work as security for his front, the Florida Science Foundation.

And if this is the case, then the entire 2008 non-prosecution agreement is called into question, along with Acosta’s role in the decision to give Epstein a term that was both “principled and fair,” according to the faux lawyer (Epstein).

Support this work with a donation