github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs


			
				
					
						
						
							1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162
							{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "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 17 of 348\n2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration............................................................................................................................49\nE. Villafaña Drafts a \"Term Sheet\" Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense.............................................................................................................................51\nV. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES .............................................................................................................................53\nA. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer.............................................................................................................................54\nB. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest .............................................................................................................................55\nC. August – September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta.............................................................................................................................59\n1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys .............................................................................................................................59\n2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence.............................................................................................................................60\n3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez .............................................................................................................................62\nVI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED .............................................................................................................................63\nA. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months .............................................................................................................................63\nB. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney .............................................................................................................................64\nC. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months.............................................................................................................................66\nD. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges .............................................................................................................................68\nE. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges.............................................................................................................................72\nF. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects .............................................................................................................................73\nG. Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They \"Try to Work It Out\" .............................................................................................................................76\nH. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a Final Version to the Defense.............................................................................................................................77\nxv\nDOJ-OGR-00003193",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration............................................................................................................................49\nE. Villafaña Drafts a \"Term Sheet\" Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense.............................................................................................................................51\nV. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES .............................................................................................................................53\nA. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer.............................................................................................................................54\nB. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest .............................................................................................................................55\nC. August – September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta.............................................................................................................................59\n1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys .............................................................................................................................59\n2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence.............................................................................................................................60\n3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez .............................................................................................................................62\nVI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED .............................................................................................................................63\nA. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months .............................................................................................................................63\nB. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney .............................................................................................................................64\nC. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months.............................................................................................................................66\nD. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges .............................................................................................................................68\nE. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges.............................................................................................................................72\nF. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects .............................................................................................................................73\nG. Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They \"Try to Work It Out\" .............................................................................................................................76\nH. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a Final Version to the Defense.............................................................................................................................77",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "xv",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003193",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Starr",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sanchez",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "FBI"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 31, 2007",
      "August 3, 2007",
      "September 7, 2007",
      "September 12, 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003193"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}