mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004482.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "185",
    "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 185 of 349\n\npreparing a \"short\" charging document \"with only 'clean' victims that they have not dirtied up already.\"230 The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the victims' credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factored into the government's charging strategy.\n\nThe two February 2007 Villafaña/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested another meeting-this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman-to make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that \"[i]t would probably be helpful to us . . . to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something.\" The requested meeting took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafaña provided to the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before the June 26 meeting, as \"an overview\" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues, Lourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments. A contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña viewed the meeting itself as primarily a \"listening session.\"231 After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO detailing Epstein's \"federalism\" arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter.\n\nMenchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the \"term sheet\" describing the proposed terms of a non-prosecution agreement.\n\nBy early August, after the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys-Starr and Lefkowitz-joined the defense team, Acosta believed they would likely \"go to DC on the case, on the grounds . . . that I have not met with them.\" A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and Oosterbaan met with Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez. In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense, with Oosterbaan participating, \"to discuss general legal policy only.\" In another email to Sloman and Lourie, Acosta explained, \"This will end up [in the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the CEOS Chief] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it.\" Acosta told OPR that the meeting \"was not a negotiation,\" but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and \"[t]he September meeting did not alter or shift our position.\"\n\n230 Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document \"should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all.\"\n\n231 During her OPR interview, the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about the government's case, including the number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved, and that during a break in the meeting, she engaged in a \"discussion\" with Menchel about providing this information to the defense. She did not recall specifics of the discussion, however.\n\n158\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004482",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 185 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "preparing a \"short\" charging document \"with only 'clean' victims that they have not dirtied up already.\"230 The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the victims' credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR that such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factored into the government's charging strategy.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The two February 2007 Villafaña/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested another meeting-this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman-to make a presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that \"[i]t would probably be helpful to us . . . to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something.\" The requested meeting took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafaña provided to the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before the June 26 meeting, as \"an overview\" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues, Lourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments. A contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña viewed the meeting itself as primarily a \"listening session.\"231 After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy letter to the USAO detailing Epstein's \"federalism\" arguments that the USAO should let the state handle the matter.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the \"term sheet\" describing the proposed terms of a non-prosecution agreement.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By early August, after the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys-Starr and Lefkowitz-joined the defense team, Acosta believed they would likely \"go to DC on the case, on the grounds . . . that I have not met with them.\" A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and Oosterbaan met with Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez. In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense, with Oosterbaan participating, \"to discuss general legal policy only.\" In another email to Sloman and Lourie, Acosta explained, \"This will end up [in the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the CEOS Chief] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it.\" Acosta told OPR that the meeting \"was not a negotiation,\" but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and \"[t]he September meeting did not alter or shift our position.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "230 Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document \"should contain only the victims they have nothing on at all.\"\n231 During her OPR interview, the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about the government's case, including the number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved, and that during a break in the meeting, she engaged in a \"discussion\" with Menchel about providing this information to the defense. She did not recall specifics of the discussion, however.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "158",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004482",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lourie",
      "Villafaña",
      "Menchel",
      "Sloman",
      "Acosta",
      "Starr",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sanchez",
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Kirkland & Ellis",
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "FBI",
      "Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "DC"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 2007",
      "May 2007",
      "June 26, 2007",
      "July 31, 2007",
      "September 7, 2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004482"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing or legal brief, discussing the details of a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text is dense and technical, suggesting a formal legal document. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}