mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00002973.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 39 of 239\n\nOPR that \"he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and 'had no involvement with it.'\" OPR Report at 64 n. 105.7\n\nBeyond this, the OPR Report and the record in the civil case note contacts with Main Justice about the NPA, but only after the NPA was negotiated, drafted, and signed. In the civil case, the district court detailed the history of the plea negotiations—and noted that, after the NPA was signed, Epstein's counsel appealed to officials in Washington, D.C., hoping to avoid enforcement of the NPA's requirement that Epstein plead guilty to state offenses, as the agreement required. Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1212-13 (S.D. Fla. 2019). As the district court noted, that appeal was rejected. Id. at 1213.\n\nIn particular, and following the execution of the NPA, the report reflects that the USAO-SDFL contacted the CEOS Chief in connection with a letter from Epstein's counsel, Kenneth Starr, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report:\n\nAt the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafaña sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was \"not thrilled\" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually \"egregious,\" particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was \"pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims.\" He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA \"other than to say that she agrees with it.\" During her OPR interview, [Assistant Attorney General] Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her \"agree[ing] with it\" referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she \"played no role in\" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed.\n\n7 The OPR Report further reflects that, at the time, a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL noted the CEOS had \"no approval authority.\" OPR Report at 60.\n\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00002973",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 39 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR that \"he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and 'had no involvement with it.'\" OPR Report at 64 n. 105.7\n\nBeyond this, the OPR Report and the record in the civil case note contacts with Main Justice about the NPA, but only after the NPA was negotiated, drafted, and signed. In the civil case, the district court detailed the history of the plea negotiations—and noted that, after the NPA was signed, Epstein's counsel appealed to officials in Washington, D.C., hoping to avoid enforcement of the NPA's requirement that Epstein plead guilty to state offenses, as the agreement required. Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1212-13 (S.D. Fla. 2019). As the district court noted, that appeal was rejected. Id. at 1213.\n\nIn particular, and following the execution of the NPA, the report reflects that the USAO-SDFL contacted the CEOS Chief in connection with a letter from Epstein's counsel, Kenneth Starr, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report:\n\nAt the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafaña sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was \"not thrilled\" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually \"egregious,\" particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was \"pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims.\" He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA \"other than to say that she agrees with it.\" During her OPR interview, [Assistant Attorney General] Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her \"agree[ing] with it\" referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she \"played no role in\" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 The OPR Report further reflects that, at the time, a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL noted the CEOS had \"no approval authority.\" OPR Report at 60.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002973",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Kenneth Starr",
      "Lourie",
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Fisher"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Main Justice",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "CEOS"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Washington, D.C.",
      "S.D. Fla."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "359 F. Supp. 3d 1201",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002973"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}