{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "126",
    "document_number": "204-3",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 348\n\n4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It\n\nAcosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255 provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have \"any insight\" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz, Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve \"our disagreements over interpretation[]\" by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read:\n\nAny person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name . . . as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.\n\nAcosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays.157\n\nLefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised \"several troubling questions\" and that \"the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement.\"158 In a follow-up letter to Acosta, to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that \"any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties,\" and that defense counsel had \"at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible.\"\n\nAcosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was \"increasingly frustrated\" by Epstein's desire to take an \"11th hour appeal\" to the Department so soon before the\n\n157 As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea.\n\n158 After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was \"inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable.\" In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007 NPA modification letter.\n\n100\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003302",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255 provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have \"any insight\" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz, Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve \"our disagreements over interpretation[]\" by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name . . . as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays.157",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised \"several troubling questions\" and that \"the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement.\"158 In a follow-up letter to Acosta, to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that \"any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties,\" and that defense counsel had \"at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible.\"",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was \"increasingly frustrated\" by Epstein's desire to take an \"11th hour appeal\" to the Department so soon before the",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "157 As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "158 After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was \"inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable.\" In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007 NPA modification letter.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "100",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003302",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Sigal Mandelker",
      "Sloman",
      "Starr",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sanchez",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 19, 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003302"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}