{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "267",
    "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 267 of 349\nobligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter.376 Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter described the appointment of a special master, the special master's selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him.\n\nThe government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA:\n\nIn addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim] would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.\n\nThe government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued that there was \"no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the [NPA].\" In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafaña revised the paragraph as follows:\n\nIn addition, there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected by the special master] can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation].\n\nOn September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case.377\n\n376 In the letter, Villafaña expressed frustration with defense counsels' claim relative to the December 19, 2007 letter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved by defense counsel before being sent.\n\n377 See Susan Spencer-Wendel, \"Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Terms,\" Palm Beach Post, Sept. 19, 2009.\n\n240\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004564",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 267 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter.376 Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties' intent in implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter described the appointment of a special master, the special master's selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim] would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued that there was \"no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the [NPA].\" In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafaña revised the paragraph as follows:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected by the special master] can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation].",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case.377",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "376 In the letter, Villafaña expressed frustration with defense counsels' claim relative to the December 19, 2007 letter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved by defense counsel before being sent.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "377 See Susan Spencer-Wendel, \"Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual' Terms,\" Palm Beach Post, Sept. 19, 2009.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "240",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004564",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Susan Spencer-Wendel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 18, 2009",
      "August 21, 2008",
      "December 19, 2007",
      "July 2008",
      "September 19, 2009",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004564"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and citations. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}