{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "130",
    "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 130 of 349\n\nthese victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a \"crap shoot.\" In addition, she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims, however, \"things just stopped\" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team.\n\nIX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW\n\nEpstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions.162 Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through June 2008.\n\n162 On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written notification of the USAO's \"ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter\" involving Epstein and others \"that may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.\" USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the Civil Rights Division, in writing, \"[a]t the outset of a criminal investigation . . . that may implicate federal civil rights statutes, . . . and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses before a grand jury.\" The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors. The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the case was of \"national interest,\" and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter.\n\nVillafaña became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised:\n\nThe Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other \"child prostitution\" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of \"national interest\" as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual.\n\nIn the notification, Senior stated that CEOS \"has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter,\" he anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and \"[i]f we determine that the case should be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you.\" OPR did not locate a response from the Civil Rights Division to the notification.\n\n103",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 130 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "these victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a \"crap shoot.\" In addition, she told OPR that there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims, however, \"things just stopped\" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions.162 Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through June 2008.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "162 On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written notification of the USAO's \"ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter\" involving Epstein and others \"that may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.\" USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the Civil Rights Division, in writing, \"[a]t the outset of a criminal investigation . . . that may implicate federal civil rights statutes, . . . and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesses before a grand jury.\" The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minors. The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the case was of \"national interest,\" and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other \"child prostitution\" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of \"national interest\" as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the notification, Senior stated that CEOS \"has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter,\" he anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and \"[i]f we determine that the case should be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you.\" OPR did not locate a response from the Civil Rights Division to the notification.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "103",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Villafaña",
      "Sloman",
      "Acosta"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department",
      "USAO",
      "CEOS",
      "Civil Rights Division",
      "Office of the Deputy Attorney General",
      "City of Palm Beach Police Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 28, 2008",
      "November 2007",
      "June 2008",
      "late February 2008",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1591",
      "USAM § 8-3.120",
      "Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 130 of 349."
}