{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "71",
    "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 71 of 348\n\nproof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. Lastly, I was not trying to \"dictate\" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney or anyone else. I stated that I \"would like\" to schedule a meeting, asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to foster spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . [M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights.\n\nIn the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by Epstein's attorneys. . . . If there are any specific issues that you or the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.70\n\nVillafaña did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise her concerns.71 Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not \"order\" Villafaña to refrain from raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafaña foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, \"the context of this exchange is, she is running roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not in charge of it. [Acosta's] in charge of it.\" Acosta, who was apparently not aware of Villafaña's email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective, Villafaña was not \"frozen out\" of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him directly for a meeting.\n\nB. Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts\n\nAs the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation, one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although Villafaña took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts.\n\n70 Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman.\n71 Villafaña told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect Sanchez to Villafaña, but that Menchel responded it was not Villafaña's \"place\" to tell him to whom he should direct communications.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 71 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability. Lastly, I was not trying to \"dictate\" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney or anyone else. I stated that I \"would like\" to schedule a meeting, asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to foster spirited debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion . . . [M]y first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by Epstein's attorneys. . . . If there are any specific issues that you or the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.70",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise her concerns.71 Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not \"order\" Villafaña to refrain from raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafaña foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, \"the context of this exchange is, she is running roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not in charge of it. [Acosta's] in charge of it.\" Acosta, who was apparently not aware of Villafaña's email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective, Villafaña was not \"frozen out\" of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him directly for a meeting.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation, one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although Villafaña took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "70 Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "71 Villafaña told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect Sanchez to Villafaña, but that Menchel responded it was not Villafaña's \"place\" to tell him to whom he should direct communications.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "45",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003247",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Menchel",
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie",
      "Sanchez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "USAO",
      "PBPD",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "July 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003247"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, discussing the investigation and interactions between various individuals involved. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer containing metadata."
}