mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021288.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "116",
    "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, Page116 of 258\nSA-114\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 114 of 348\na proposal regarding the special master's responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the special master explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative.\nLefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafaña, pointing out that the NPA did not provide for the appointment of a special master. More importantly, Lefkowitz used the discussion of the special master as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed:\n[T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not continue to be represented by the selected attorney.\nLefkowitz also objected to Villafaña's draft letter to the special master, asserting that it was essential for the defense to participate in crafting a \"mutually acceptable communication\" to the victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz admonished the government not to contact the victims \"to inform them of the resolution of the case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process.\"\nVillafaña forwarded Lefkowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, \"Can I please just indict him [Epstein]?' Days later, Sanchez emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up letter, asking that Sloman \"help resolve\" the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims' civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villafaña explained to Sloman her views on Sanchez's arguments, Sloman responded, \"I suggest that you communicate your proposal back to [Sanchez]. The more 'voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive between us.\" Villafaña agreed, noting that \"[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we are getting triple-teamed.\"136\nVillafaña sent Sanchez a letter regarding the roles of the special master and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a \"follow up to our conversation yesterday,\" expressing \"serious disagreements\" with Villafaña's view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement\n136 Villafaña also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafaña commented, \"It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding.\"\n88\nDOJ-OGR-00021288",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page116 of 258",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-114",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 114 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a proposal regarding the special master's responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the special master explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafaña, pointing out that the NPA did not provide for the appointment of a special master. More importantly, Lefkowitz used the discussion of the special master as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed:",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not continue to be represented by the selected attorney.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lefkowitz also objected to Villafaña's draft letter to the special master, asserting that it was essential for the defense to participate in crafting a \"mutually acceptable communication\" to the victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz admonished the government not to contact the victims \"to inform them of the resolution of the case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process.\"",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña forwarded Lefkowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, \"Can I please just indict him [Epstein]?' Days later, Sanchez emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up letter, asking that Sloman \"help resolve\" the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims' civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villafaña explained to Sloman her views on Sanchez's arguments, Sloman responded, \"I suggest that you communicate your proposal back to [Sanchez]. The more 'voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive between us.\" Villafaña agreed, noting that \"[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we are getting triple-teamed.\"136",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña sent Sanchez a letter regarding the roles of the special master and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a \"follow up to our conversation yesterday,\" expressing \"serious disagreements\" with Villafaña's view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "136 Villafaña also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafaña commented, \"It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "88",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021288",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman",
      "Sanchez",
      "Acosta"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "04/16/21",
      "October 10, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 77",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 204-3",
      "3536038",
      "SA-114",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021288"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case. It contains a detailed discussion of the roles of the special master and attorney representative. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps."
}