{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "136",
    "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 136 of 349\n\nDivision forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as \"an enormous amount of material\" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional misconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, one of the proposed charging documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Sanchez.\n\nAs the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney Krischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve a 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafaña wrote to her immediate supervisor: \"Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him.\" Villafaña and her immediate supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or \"we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly.\"171\n\nDeputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth, an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the USAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's counsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office, and that CEOS furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues, as well as with the Deputy Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions.\n\nRoth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA, and because he believed the NPA was a \"dead letter,\" he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the \"mission\" of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether the NPA reached the \"right balance\" between state and federal punishment. He told OPR, \"[W]e heard an appeal. . . . [Epstein] wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting and we didn't give him [any] relief.\" Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epstein's arguments \"felt that it was a sympathetic appeal.\" In particular, he told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was \"ludicrous,\" and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was politically motivated \"just seemed unserious.\"\n\n171 Villafaña urged Sloman, \"Someone really needs to talk to Barry.\"\n\n109\nDOJ-OGR-00004433",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 136 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as \"an enormous amount of material\" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional misconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, one of the proposed charging documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Sanchez.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney Krischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve a 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafaña wrote to her immediate supervisor: \"Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him.\" Villafaña and her immediate supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or \"we will consider it a breach of the agreement and proceed accordingly.\"171",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth, an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the USAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's counsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as materials that the defense team and the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office, and that CEOS furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues, as well as with the Deputy Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA, and because he believed the NPA was a \"dead letter,\" he did not review the terms of the agreement or ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he understood that the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the \"mission\" of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether the NPA reached the \"right balance\" between state and federal punishment. He told OPR, \"[W]e heard an appeal. . . . [Epstein] wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting and we didn't give him [any] relief.\" Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his office who looked at Epstein's arguments \"felt that it was a sympathetic appeal.\" In particular, he told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was \"ludicrous,\" and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was politically motivated \"just seemed unserious.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "171 Villafaña urged Sloman, \"Someone really needs to talk to Barry.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "109",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004433",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Roth",
      "Sloman",
      "Epstein",
      "Krischer",
      "Jack Goldberger",
      "Villafaña",
      "Deputy Attorney General Filip",
      "Starr",
      "John Roth",
      "Acosta",
      "Sanchez",
      "Barry"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "Office of the Deputy Attorney General",
      "CEOS",
      "Criminal Division",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "West Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "June 3, 2008",
      "December 19, 2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004433"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, with detailed discussions about the handling of the case and interactions between various officials and attorneys."
}