DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg

937 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

9
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
5
Events
5
Relationships
11
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 937 KB
Summary

This legal document details communications among prosecutors Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. The prosecutors debated strategy concerning defense counsel's efforts to delay litigation and prevent the government from obtaining computer evidence. Ultimately, Acosta decided to meet with the defense, postponing investigative steps and deadlines, believing it was better to keep the matter within the USAO rather than letting it escalate to the main Department of Justice.

People (9)

Name Role Context
Oosterbaan CEOS Chief
Mentioned as [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an], who was willing to join a meeting with the defense.
Acosta
A key figure who provided guidance, made decisions regarding case strategy, and communicated with Villafaña, Lourie, ...
Villafaña
Informed Acosta of conversations, sought guidance, communicated with Lourie and defense counsel Black, and provided o...
Epstein
The subject of the investigation, whose assistants, colleagues, and computer equipment are mentioned.
Lourie
Emailed Acosta and Sloman, was contacted by Villafaña and Sanchez, and was involved in decisions about litigation str...
Sloman
Recipient of an email from Lourie, along with Acosta.
Black Defense Counsel
Requested to stay the litigation concerning Epstein's computer equipment.
Sanchez Defense Counsel
Reached out to Lourie to request a stay of litigation.
Menchel
Provided an opinion to OPR regarding why defense counsel might resist turning over a computer.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
CEOS government agency
Mentioned as the organization whose chief, Oosterbaan, was asked to participate in a meeting. Lourie noted that CEOS ...
Department government agency
Referred to as the entity that might scrutinize the NPA scheme or direct the USAO to drop the case. Likely refers to ...
USAO government agency
The U.S. Attorney's Office, which was handling the case and whose involvement the Department might direct to end.
OPR government agency
The Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Acosta, Villafaña, and Menchel provided statements or information.

Timeline (5 events)

2007-08-08
Villafaña informed Acosta about her conversation with Oosterbaan and plans for a meeting with the defense.
2007-08-10
Villafaña emailed Lourie about a planned trip to New York and strategy regarding a request to stay litigation.
2007-08-13
Villafaña advised defense counsel Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of litigation.
2007-08-22
Defense counsel Sanchez reached out to Lourie and they agreed to a joint request for a stay of litigation.
2007-09-07
A meeting between Acosta and defense counsel was scheduled for this date.
Acosta Defense Counsel

Locations (2)

Location Context
Location where Villafaña wanted to contact Epstein's assistants and where she planned a trip.
DC
Mentioned in the context of a 'DC meeting' that Oosterbaan's teleconference participation would intercept.

Relationships (5)

Acosta professional Villafaña
Villafaña informed Acosta of developments and asked him for guidance, indicating Acosta was in a supervisory role.
Acosta professional Lourie
Lourie emailed Acosta to make suggestions and ask for direction, and Acosta replied with a final decision, indicating a supervisory or senior colleague relationship.
Villafaña professional Lourie
They communicated via email about case strategy, suggesting they were colleagues working together on the case.
Villafaña adversarial (legal) Black
Villafaña, for the prosecution (USAO), opposed a request from Black, who was defense counsel.
Lourie adversarial (legal) Sanchez
Sanchez, as defense counsel, negotiated with Lourie of the USAO to obtain an agreement for a stay of litigation.

Key Quotes (11)

"[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case."
Source
— Acosta (When telling OPR about his concerns regarding Departmental involvement.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #1
"to stay firm on our August 17th deadline."
Source
— Acosta (A directive for Oosterbaan's participation in a meeting with the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #2
"there was some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a plea,"
Source
— Villafaña (Noted by Villafaña when asking Acosta for guidance.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #3
"stick to our deadline if possible."
Source
— Lourie (In an email to Acosta and Sloman.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #4
"has no approval authority"
Source
— Lourie (Lourie's point about CEOS in an email to Acosta.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #5
"a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to different agencies."
Source
— Lourie (His opinion on the defense's strategy.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #6
"This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don’t meet with them. I’d rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit . . . it’s worth it."
Source
— Acosta (Acosta's reply to Lourie, explaining his reasoning for meeting with the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #7
"still go ahead"
Source
— Villafaña (Inquiring with Lourie about her planned trip to New York.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #8
"further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."
Source
— Villafaña (Her opinion to OPR about the defense's efforts to delay litigation over the computers.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #9
"would have put this case completely to bed."
Source
— Villafaña (Her suspicion about the evidence contained on the computers.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #10
"there could be a lot of reasons why” defense counsel would resist “turn[ing] over an entire computer."
Source
— Menchel (His statement to OPR, offering an alternative view to Villafaña's.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #11

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document