{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "169",
    "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 169 of 348\n\nnarrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's association to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.212 The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection to former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President.213\n\n2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences\n\nIn addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in negotiating the NPA. Villafaña, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, \"[W]e tried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at . . . how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy.\" Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not believe \"it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other.\" Lourie told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more \"front office\" involvement in the case, but it did not affect the outcome, and Sloman \"emphatically disagreed\" with the suggestion that the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents, who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth. The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth and influence.\n\nOPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations. Of more significance, and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subjects' assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also\n\n212 In the pre-NPA letter to the USAO, counsel recited a litany of Epstein's purported good deeds and charitable works, including a trip Epstein took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS, and counsel also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as \"a committed philanthropist.\"\n213 In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been \"politically motivated\" due to Epstein's \"close personal association with former President Bill Clinton.\"\n214 OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors that influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña all had long careers with the Department, and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 169 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "narrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's association to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.212 The defense submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection to former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his association with the former President.213",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in negotiating the NPA. Villafaña, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she understood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to counter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving wealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, \"[W]e tried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at . . . how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to do this because he is so wealthy.\" Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not believe \"it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other.\" Lourie told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more \"front office\" involvement in the case, but it did not affect the outcome, and Sloman \"emphatically disagreed\" with the suggestion that the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections. Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents, who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently because of his wealth. The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth and influence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such motivations. Of more significance, and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that contemporaneous records support the subjects' assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "212 In the pre-NPA letter to the USAO, counsel recited a litany of Epstein's purported good deeds and charitable works, including a trip Epstein took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS, and counsel also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as \"a committed philanthropist.\"\n213 In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been \"politically motivated\" due to Epstein's \"close personal association with former President Bill Clinton.\"\n214 OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors that influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña all had long careers with the Department, and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003345",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Clinton",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie",
      "Villafaña",
      "Bill Clinton"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "FBI",
      "State Attorney's Office",
      "Department",
      "New York Magazine"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Africa"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "212",
      "213",
      "214",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003345"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case, discussing the motivations of the subject attorneys and the handling of the case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}