{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "110",
    "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 110 of 349\n\nLefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those Sanchez had presented to Lourie, as to why registration \"based on the facts alleged in this case . . . simply does not make sense.\" In the event that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative \"to stipulate that the state offense\" would \"constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist sentencing\" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz further argued, \"By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist sentencing for the humiliation of registration.\" Emails reflect that, early that afternoon, Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña discussed the matter in a conference call.\n\nLefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafaña that omitted identification of the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta:\n\nI got a call from [M]arie who said you had rejected our proposal. Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit now to plead to the registrable offense near the end of his 18 month sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed [F]riday (although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some kind of federal charge).\n\nBut that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total, and 18 in jail.\n\nHow can that not satisfy you—while still ensuring that [E]pstein is not unduly endangered in jail?\n\nAcosta responded, \"I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the AUSAs assigned to the case.\" Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafaña, and they had \"discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate.\" Acosta copied Villafaña, and she emailed Acosta to thank him \"for the support.\"\n\nL. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause\n\nThroughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with Villafaña, and apparently a conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.) and Villafaña. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a new version of the NPA that, for the first time, included a confidentiality term:\n\nIt is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be disseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order. In the event the Government must disclose this Agreement in response to a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure of this Agreement.\n\nAfter making additional revisions, Villafaña sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the \"final\" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she changed the confidentiality provision to the following:\n\n83\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004407",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 110 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those Sanchez had presented to Lourie, as to why registration \"based on the facts alleged in this case . . . simply does not make sense.\" In the event that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative \"to stipulate that the state offense\" would \"constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist sentencing\" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz further argued, \"By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist sentencing for the humiliation of registration.\" Emails reflect that, early that afternoon, Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña discussed the matter in a conference call.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafaña that omitted identification of the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I got a call from [M]arie who said you had rejected our proposal. Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit now to plead to the registrable offense near the end of his 18 month sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed [F]riday (although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some kind of federal charge).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total, and 18 in jail.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "How can that not satisfy you—while still ensuring that [E]pstein is not unduly endangered in jail?",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta responded, \"I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the AUSAs assigned to the case.\" Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafaña, and they had \"discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate.\" Acosta copied Villafaña, and she emailed Acosta to thank him \"for the support.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Throughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with Villafaña, and apparently a conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.) and Villafaña. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a new version of the NPA that, for the first time, included a confidentiality term:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be disseminated or disclosed except pursuant to court order. In the event the Government must disclose this Agreement in response to a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure of this Agreement.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After making additional revisions, Villafaña sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the \"final\" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she changed the confidentiality provision to the following:",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "83",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004407",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sanchez",
      "Lourie",
      "Acosta",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Marie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Washington, D.C."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004407"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses negotiations between the defense and prosecution regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and the inclusion of a confidentiality clause. The document is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}