"I Regret That I Cannot Be of More Assistance"

The Finding

The DOJ Epstein files contain a letter dated April 9, 2008, signed by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, in which he personally invoked grand jury secrecy to refuse a victim’s attorney information about the criminal case. The Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed 82 days later. Epstein’s defense team received the NPA the day it was executed. The victim’s attorney was still requesting a copy three months after that. In 2019, a federal judge ruled this conduct violated the law.

Key Points

Acosta personally signed a letter invoking Rule 6(e) grand jury secrecy to block a victim’s attorney from learning about the Epstein case — 82 days before the NPA was signed
On the same day DOJ authorized compelled grand jury testimony against Epstein, his defense attorney was scheduling a “wrap up call” — the victim’s attorneys had heard nothing since Acosta’s refusal
Three months after the NPA was executed, the victim’s attorney was still writing to request a copy of the agreement
Internal emails show Acosta’s office knew Epstein’s work release arrangement was irregular — months before the NPA was signed. Acosta was CC’d.
A federal judge ruled in 2019 that prosecutors broke the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before entering the NPA

The Evidence

On April 9, 2008, a two-page fax arrived at the Lake Worth, Florida law offices of Richard H. Willits. The substantive page was a letter on Department of Justice letterhead, signed by R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Willits and his colleague Michael Danchuk had written on March 28 requesting information about the Epstein case on behalf of their client — a victim.

"Thank you for your letter of March 28, 2008, regarding [victim name redacted]. Pursuant to the strict rules of grand jury secrecy, I am not able to provide you with the information that you have requested. I believe that some of the information you are seeking is available from public sources on the Internet."

— R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney, April 9, 2008 (EFTA00189891)

The letter closed with a line that would take on a different meaning once the full timeline emerged:

"I regret that I cannot be of more assistance. I would appreciate it if you would keep me updated on the course of the civil litigation."

— R. Alexander Acosta to Richard H. Willits, April 9, 2008 (EFTA00189891)

Acosta invoked Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) — grand jury secrecy — as the basis for refusal. Rule 6(e) protects testimony, deliberations, and witness identities from grand jury proceedings. It does not protect the existence or terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement. An NPA is a bilateral agreement between prosecutors and defense counsel. It is not a grand jury proceeding.

While the victim’s attorney received silence, Epstein’s defense team received the opposite. The DOJ files document continuous, detailed correspondence between the U.S. Attorney’s office and Epstein’s attorneys — Jay Lefkowitz at Kirkland & Ellis, Roy Black, and Jack Goldberger — throughout 2007 and 2008. NPA drafts. Negotiation letters. Deadline discussions. Scheduling calls.

June 24, 2008 — 76 days after the Acosta letter — is the most revealing day in the file. Two documents from different sources land on the same date.

The first: the DOJ Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. writes to “The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta” approving his request for compelled testimony authority under 18 U.S.C. § 6003(b). Subject: “Grand Jury Investigation, Jeffrey Epstein, et al.” Main Justice is authorizing the U.S. Attorney to compel witness testimony in an active grand jury investigation — six days before the NPA that would prevent any federal prosecution was signed.

The second: Roy Black, Epstein’s defense attorney, emails to schedule a call with Goldberger and AUSA Sloman.

"This will be a wrap up call."

— Roy Black, Epstein defense attorney, June 24, 2008 (EFTA00067492)

The defense team was wrapping up. DOJ was authorizing compelled testimony. The victim’s attorneys had heard nothing since April 9.

Six days later, on June 30, 2008, the NPA was formally executed. The U.S. Attorney’s office provided Epstein’s attorney Jack Goldberger with a list of thirty-one victims. On July 7, victims filed an emergency petition to enforce the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, marked “Priority: Urgent.”

The Rule 6(e) wall held. On September 12, 2008 — more than five months after Acosta’s letter, more than two months after the NPA was signed and Epstein’s defense team received it — Willits and Danchuk wrote again, this time to AUSA Villafana:

"Please provide us a copy of the settlement agreement that you refer to between the United States and Mr. Epstein."

— Michael Danchuk, Legal Administrator, to AUSA Villafana, September 12, 2008 (EFTA00223633)

They were still asking for a document that had existed since June 30. Epstein’s defense team received it the day it was signed.

Internal emails from November 2007 — months before any of this — show that Acosta’s office already knew Epstein’s work release arrangement was irregular. A jail supervisor informed prosecutors that Epstein “would not qualify for work release as a sex offender, however the work release could still be ordered by the judge.” Acosta was CC’d on the chain. Epstein received work release. He served 13 months of an 18-month sentence. During work release, he left the Palm Beach County Stockade for up to 12 hours a day, six days a week.

On February 21, 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that prosecutors broke the law. They had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before entering the NPA. The April 9 letter is the artifact that proves the wall was built deliberately, maintained personally by the U.S. Attorney, and held for months after the agreement was signed.

Why This Matters

The Acosta letter has appeared in court filings. It has not been isolated and analyzed as a standalone artifact proving conscious, deliberate concealment. The letter is first-person written proof — on DOJ letterhead, over the U.S. Attorney’s signature — that a victim’s attorney was blocked from learning about the case while Epstein’s defense team received continuous, detailed correspondence about the same agreement. This is not inference. It is two tracks of communication from the same office, in the same case, in the same weeks, documented in the same file production.