mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003478.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "302",
    "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 302 of 348\n\nnot plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a \"very open question\" whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that \"where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when.\"\n\nEpstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.435 In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 recovery.\n\nOn June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Villafaña contacted Edwards to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña told OPR she \"was not given authorization to contact\" any victim's attorney other than Edwards about the scheduled state plea hearing.436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, Edwards stated that Villafaña \"gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all.\"\n\nEdwards said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaña told him only that \"Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward's clients nor any of the federally-identified victims.\" Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that she \"never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the prostitution charge to a specific victim.\" Villafaña told OPR she \"strongly encouraged [Edwards] and his clients to attend\" the plea hearing but \"could not be more explicit\" because she was not \"authorized by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA.\" In his 2017 affidavit, Edwards acknowledged that \"Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way.\" Edwards claimed that Villafaña's failure to inform him that the \"guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement\" resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. Edwards himself was out of town and not able to\n\n435 As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who had received a subpoena \"issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed).\" Villafaña further observed that because Epstein is \"going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case.\"\n\n436 Villafaña's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein's state court guilty plea, Villafaña was aware of the identities of at least five other attorneys representing Epstein's victims. In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated, \"I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.\" On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter \"is going to notify victims about the plea.\" Sloman replied, \"Good.\"\n\n276\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003478",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 302 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a \"very open question\" whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that \"where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when.\"\n\nEpstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.435 In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 recovery.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Villafaña contacted Edwards to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña told OPR she \"was not given authorization to contact\" any victim's attorney other than Edwards about the scheduled state plea hearing.436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, Edwards stated that Villafaña \"gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all.\"",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Edwards said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaña told him only that \"Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward's clients nor any of the federally-identified victims.\" Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that she \"never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the prostitution charge to a specific victim.\" Villafaña told OPR she \"strongly encouraged [Edwards] and his clients to attend\" the plea hearing but \"could not be more explicit\" because she was not \"authorized by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA.\" In his 2017 affidavit, Edwards acknowledged that \"Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way.\" Edwards claimed that Villafaña's failure to inform him that the \"guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement\" resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. Edwards himself was out of town and not able to",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "435 As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who had received a subpoena \"issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed).\" Villafaña further observed that because Epstein is \"going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case.\"",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "436 Villafaña's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein's state court guilty plea, Villafaña was aware of the identities of at least five other attorneys representing Epstein's victims. In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated, \"I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.\" On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter \"is going to notify victims about the plea.\" Sloman replied, \"Good.\"",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "276",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003478",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Edwards",
      "Jeff Sloman",
      "PBPD Chief Reiter"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "FBI",
      "OPR",
      "PBPD"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 2007",
      "February 20, 2008",
      "June 27, 2008",
      "June 30, 2008",
      "March 2008",
      "June 28, 2008",
      "2016",
      "2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2255",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003478"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It includes details about the interactions between Epstein's attorneys and the prosecutors, as well as the victims and their attorneys. The document is a printed copy, and there is no indication of any handwritten notes or stamps on the provided image."
}