{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "124",
    "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 124 of 349\n\nprovision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded:\n\nAlthough it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor.\n\nI am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind.\n\nI would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday . . . to provide you with time to review these options with your client. . . . We expect a written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement.\n\nAcosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as \"inviting\" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the \"right\" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher) that\n\n97\nDOJ-OGR-00004421",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 124 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "provision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded:\n\nAlthough it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday . . . to provide you with time to review these options with your client. . . . We expect a written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as \"inviting\" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the \"right\" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher) that",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "97",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004421",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Starr",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sloman",
      "Fisher"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department Headquarters",
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "CEOS"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Washington"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "December 7, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004421"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal proceeding and contains legal terminology and references to specific laws and regulations."
}