← Back to home

Document DOJ-OGR-00023030

AI Analysis

Summary: The document outlines the negotiations and challenges related to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), including disagreements over terms such as sexual offender registration and monetary damages for victims. It details the interactions between prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, and Epstein's defense team, including Lefkowitz, Sloman, and Starr. The NPA's signing and subsequent disputes are covered, along with the Department's review of the case.
Significance: This document provides detailed insights into the negotiations and disputes surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, potentially shedding light on the handling of the case and interactions between the prosecution and defense.
Key Topics: Negotiations surrounding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Jeffrey Epstein Disagreements between the defense and prosecution regarding the terms of the NPA Efforts to modify or challenge the NPA after its signing
Key People:
  • Acosta - US Attorney or representative involved in NPA negotiations
  • Epstein - The individual for whom the NPA was negotiated
  • Villafaña - Prosecutor or investigator whose conduct was challenged by the defense
  • Lefkowitz - Defense attorney for Epstein
  • Sloman - Likely another defense attorney or representative for Epstein
  • Starr - Defense attorney or representative for Epstein
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
Unknown
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES008

Full Text

I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA "State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement .................... 78 J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators" ....... 79 K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement ............................................... 81 L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause ............................... 83 VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED ................................................................ 84 VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS ....................................................... 87 A. September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum ....................... 87 B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast ................................................................ 89 C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representation and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum ............... 91 D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea ...................................... 94 E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims ............................... 94 F. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct ............................... 98 1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafaña ............................................................... 98 2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel ....................................... 99 3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions .................................................... 99 4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It ............................. 100 5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez, Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct ............................ 101 6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence ................................. 102 IX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW ........................... 103 A. February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division ........ 104 xvi DOJ-OGR-00023030