{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "108",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 108 of 349\n\nfederal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, \"in a sense,\" of Epstein's conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals, Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein.125 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafaña and Lourie had \"thought this through\" and \"addressed it for a reason.\" The West Palm Beach manager, who had only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was \"highly unusual,\" and he had \"no clue\" why the USAO agreed to it.\n\nVillafaña told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of \"any other potential co-conspirators. So, . . . we wouldn't be prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? . . . I just didn't think that there was anybody that it would cover.\" She conceded, however, that she \"did not catch the fact that it could be read as broadly as people have since read it.\"\n\nK. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement\n\nOn the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed Villafaña that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree \"to all the terms\" of the NPA—except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense counsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal law enforcement felt, at any point during his service of the sentence, that he needed to do so. Krischer noted that he had \"reached out\" to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back from him. Villafaña responded, \"I think Alex is calling you now.\" Villafaña told OPR that, to her knowledge, Acosta called Krischer to tell him that registration was not a negotiable term.126\n\nLater that afternoon, Villafaña emailed Krischer for information about the amount of \"gain time\" Epstein would earn in state prison. Villafaña explained in her email that she wanted to include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein \"will actually be in jail at least a certain number of days to make sure he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison authorities to let him out early.\" Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood, Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Villafaña that a plea to a registrable offense would not prevent Epstein from serving his time \"at the stockade\"—the local minimum security detention facility.127\n\n125 Sloman also pointed out that the NPA was not a \"global resolution\" and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted \"by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country.\"\n126 Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein case or any other matter.\n127 The State Attorney concluded his email: \"Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation.\" Villafaña responded, \"Sounds great.\" When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafaña said: \"Everybody\n\n81\nDOJ-OGR-00004405",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 108 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, \"in a sense,\" of Epstein's conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals, Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked with Epstein.125 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafaña and Lourie had \"thought this through\" and \"addressed it for a reason.\" The West Palm Beach manager, who had only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was \"highly unusual,\" and he had \"no clue\" why the USAO agreed to it.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had not developed evidence of \"any other potential co-conspirators. So, . . . we wouldn't be prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? . . . I just didn't think that there was anybody that it would cover.\" She conceded, however, that she \"did not catch the fact that it could be read as broadly as people have since read it.\"",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed Villafaña that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree \"to all the terms\" of the NPA—except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense counsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal law enforcement felt, at any point during his service of the sentence, that he needed to do so. Krischer noted that he had \"reached out\" to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back from him. Villafaña responded, \"I think Alex is calling you now.\" Villafaña told OPR that, to her knowledge, Acosta called Krischer to tell him that registration was not a negotiable term.126",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Later that afternoon, Villafaña emailed Krischer for information about the amount of \"gain time\" Epstein would earn in state prison. Villafaña explained in her email that she wanted to include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein \"will actually be in jail at least a certain number of days to make sure he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison authorities to let him out early.\" Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood, Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Villafaña that a plea to a registrable offense would not prevent Epstein from serving his time \"at the stockade\"—the local minimum security detention facility.127",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "125 Sloman also pointed out that the NPA was not a \"global resolution\" and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted \"by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country.\"\n126 Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein case or any other matter.\n127 The State Attorney concluded his email: \"Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation.\" Villafaña responded, \"Sounds great.\" When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafaña said: \"Everybody",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "81",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004405",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Sloman",
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta",
      "Villafaña",
      "Lourie",
      "Krischer",
      "Alex"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "U.S. Attorney's office",
      "Starbucks"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "West Palm Beach",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 21, 2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004405"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case, with detailed discussions about the non-prosecution provision and the sexual offender registration requirement. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}