{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "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 18 of 348\nI. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA \"State-Only\" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement ............................................................................................................................78\nJ. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge \"Potential Co-Conspirators\".......79\nK. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement ............................................................................................................................81\nL. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause............................................................83\nVII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED ........................................................................................................................................84\nVIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS......................................................................................87\nA. September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum...............................................87\nB. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast ........................................................................................................................................89\nC. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum ................................................................91\nD. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea....................................................................94\nE. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims ....................................................................94\nF. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct..............................................................98\n1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and \"Ethics Opinions\" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafaña....................98\n2. As a Result of Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel........................................................................................................................................99\n3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions................................................................................................................99\n4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It ................................................................100\n5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez, Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct ................................................................101\n6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence ..............................................................102\nIX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW...........................................103\nA. February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division...............104\nxvi DOJ-OGR-00003194",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 18 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA \"State-Only\" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement ............................................................................................................................78\nJ. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge \"Potential Co-Conspirators\".......79\nK. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement ............................................................................................................................81\nL. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause............................................................83\nVII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED ........................................................................................................................................84\nVIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS......................................................................................87\nA. September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum...............................................87\nB. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast ........................................................................................................................................89\nC. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum ................................................................91\nD. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea....................................................................94\nE. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims ....................................................................94\nF. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct..............................................................98\n1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and \"Ethics Opinions\" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafaña....................98\n2. As a Result of Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel........................................................................................................................................99\n3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions................................................................................................................99\n4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It ................................................................100\n5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez, Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct ................................................................101\n6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence ..............................................................102\nIX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW...........................................103\nA. February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division...............104",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "xvi DOJ-OGR-00003194",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Starr",
      "Sanchez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "CEOS",
      "Criminal Division"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "September 24, 2007",
      "October 12, 2007",
      "December 7, 2007",
      "December 11, 2007",
      "January 7, 2008",
      "February 2008",
      "May 15, 2008",
      "June 2008",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003194"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It contains a detailed account of the negotiations and events surrounding Epstein's plea agreement and subsequent actions. The document is likely a government or court record, given the formal tone and content."
}