mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021362.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "190",
    "document_number": "77",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page190 of 258\nSA-188\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 188 of 348\npromise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this.\nIt is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case.\nAcosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had discussed those disagreements with Sloman.\nNevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to \"dictate\" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta asked Villafaña to \"soften\" certain language that appeared to require the State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject, rather than any new concession.\nLefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña.\nFinally, Lefkowitz's October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was \"entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release.\" Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's Office for an 18-month jail sentence, although the parties understood that he would receive the same \"gain time\" benefits available to all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafaña, on behalf of the USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that \"Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail.\" Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafaña wrote to the State Attorney to remind him that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month\n162\nDOJ-OGR-00021362",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page190 of 258\nSA-188",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 188 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this.\nIt is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had discussed those disagreements with Sloman.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in the October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did not want to \"dictate\" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta asked Villafaña to \"soften\" certain language that appeared to require the State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the subject, rather than any new concession.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not stem from the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, Lefkowitz's October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was \"entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release.\" Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's Office for an 18-month jail sentence, although the parties understood that he would receive the same \"gain time\" benefits available to all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafaña, on behalf of the USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that \"Epstein intends to abide by his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail.\" Shortly before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafaña wrote to the State Attorney to remind him that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "162",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021362",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sloman",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "OPR",
      "USAO",
      "State Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "county jail"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "04/16/21",
      "October 23, 2007",
      "November 5, 2007",
      "June 2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 77",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 204-3",
      "3536038",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021362"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document or a report related to a legal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}