mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003224.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "48",
    "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 48 of 348\nalso informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories \"have not changed,\" and that \"[a]ny discrepancies will be noted and considered.\" She conceded that \"[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder,\" but expressed confidence that the two key victims \"will stay the course.\" She acknowledged that the case \"needs to be rock solid.\"\n\nThe case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI \"partnered up very well\" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight either from the FBI or the USAO, and \"we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our job done.\" This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial transactions. The case agent viewed the case as \"strong.\"\n\n5. October 2006 - February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting\n\nJust as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafaña in August 2006. As the investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal prosecution.32 As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's Miami lawyers, Guy Lewis, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November 2006.34 Lewis telephoned Villafaña, a call that Sloman joined at Villafaña's request. Lewis offered to provide Villafaña\n\n32 Villafaña told OPR that Epstein's lawyers wanted to stop the investigation \"prematurely.\"\n\n33 Chapter One, Section III.B of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented Epstein during civil depositions individuals associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as \"ham-fisted\" and \"clumsy.\" Menchel told OPR, \"[O]ur perspective was this is not going to . . . change anything.\"\n\n34 Lewis served in the USAO for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department's administrative office serving the U.S. Attorneys.\n\nEarly in the investigation, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that Lourie was friends with Lewis and also had a close friendship with Lewis's law partner, who also was a former AUSA and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with Lewis and Lewis's law partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie's relationships with the two men were not \"covered\" relationships under the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel \"to make the call.\" Thereafter, Sloman authorized Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to Lewis did not influence his handling of the case.\n\n22\nDOJ-OGR-00003224",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "header",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 48 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories \"have not changed,\" and that \"[a]ny discrepancies will be noted and considered.\" She conceded that \"[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder,\" but expressed confidence that the two key victims \"will stay the course.\" She acknowledged that the case \"needs to be rock solid.\"\n\nThe case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI \"partnered up very well\" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight either from the FBI or the USAO, and \"we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our job done.\" This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial transactions. The case agent viewed the case as \"strong.\"\n\n5. October 2006 - February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting\n\nJust as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafaña in August 2006. As the investigation progressed, Epstein took steps to persuade the USAO to decline federal prosecution.32 As with the state investigation, Epstein employed attorneys who had experience with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's Miami lawyers, Guy Lewis, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November 2006.34 Lewis telephoned Villafaña, a call that Sloman joined at Villafaña's request. Lewis offered to provide Villafaña",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "content": "32 Villafaña told OPR that Epstein's lawyers wanted to stop the investigation \"prematurely.\"\n\n33 Chapter One, Section III.B of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented Epstein during civil depositions individuals associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as \"ham-fisted\" and \"clumsy.\" Menchel told OPR, \"[O]ur perspective was this is not going to . . . change anything.\"\n\n34 Lewis served in the USAO for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department's administrative office serving the U.S. Attorneys.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Early in the investigation, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that Lourie was friends with Lewis and also had a close friendship with Lewis's law partner, who also was a former AUSA and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with Lewis and Lewis's law partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie's relationships with the two men were not \"covered\" relationships under the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel \"to make the call.\" Thereafter, Sloman authorized Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to Lewis did not influence his handling of the case.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "footer",
      "content": "22\nDOJ-OGR-00003224",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie",
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Gerald Lefcourt",
      "Guy Lewis",
      "Menchel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "PBPD",
      "USAO",
      "Department",
      "Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Miami",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 2006",
      "February 2007",
      "August 2006",
      "November 2006",
      "2000",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003224"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 48 of a 348-page document."
}