{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "197",
    "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 197 of 348\n\nNotably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child sex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the PROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was \"an important federal interest,\" which in Epstein's case was compounded by the \"sordidness\" of the acts involved and the number of victims.\n\nIt is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not reached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons without regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct under federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy \"on its face\" did not apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption of prosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these circumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors. The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case.245\n\nDespite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, the fact that the Petite policy did not apply, and the State Attorney's willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance pending the federal government's assumption of the case, Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism.246 In essence, Acosta believed that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state's authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR:\n\n245 In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges, it would not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim. The office also noted that if other factors existed, such as use of the internet to contact victims, those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy, if it did apply.\n\n246 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta's concerns from those of the other subjects. However, OPR's investigation made clear that, although Acosta shared his subordinates' concerns about the strength of the case, victim-witness credibility, and the novelty of some legal theories, he alone focused on federalism issues. Acosta's counsel also asserted that OPR \"misunderstands and devalues Secretary Acosta's very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws,\" and counsel further noted Acosta's concerns that \"bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims.\" Although OPR carefully considered counsel's arguments and agrees that it was appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for the Department's anti-trafficking efforts, OPR does not believe that those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA, which, for the reasons discussed in this Section, failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the state system to his benefit.\n\n171\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003373",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 197 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Notably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child sex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the PROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was \"an important federal interest,\" which in Epstein's case was compounded by the \"sordidness\" of the acts involved and the number of victims.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not reached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons without regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct under federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy \"on its face\" did not apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption of prosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these circumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors. The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under the circumstances of this case.245",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, the fact that the Petite policy did not apply, and the State Attorney's willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance pending the federal government's assumption of the case, Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism.246 In essence, Acosta believed that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state's authority. He explained his reasoning to OPR:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "245 In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges, it would not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim. The office also noted that if other factors existed, such as use of the internet to contact victims, those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy, if it did apply.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "246 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta's concerns from those of the other subjects. However, OPR's investigation made clear that, although Acosta shared his subordinates' concerns about the strength of the case, victim-witness credibility, and the novelty of some legal theories, he alone focused on federalism issues. Acosta's counsel also asserted that OPR \"misunderstands and devalues Secretary Acosta's very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws,\" and counsel further noted Acosta's concerns that \"bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims.\" Although OPR carefully considered counsel's arguments and agrees that it was appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for the Department's anti-trafficking efforts, OPR does not believe that those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA, which, for the reasons discussed in this Section, failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the state system to his benefit.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "171",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003373",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department",
      "Congress",
      "OPR",
      "USAO",
      "Office of Enforcement Operations"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003373"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the Department's interest in prosecuting Epstein for child sex trafficking and the role of the Petite policy in the decision-making process. The document includes footnotes and references to specific sections and pages."
}