DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
955 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
9
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
955 KB
Summary
This legal document details internal discussions and a key meeting related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It describes a June 26, 2007, meeting where Epstein's attorneys, led by Dershowitz, argued for the case to be handled by the state, an argument the USAO team found unpersuasive. Despite internal concerns about the strength of certain aspects of the case, the USAO team left the meeting intending to proceed, but the document concludes by noting that in July 2007, Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state plea deal to resolve the federal investigation.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lourie |
Opined on the government's argument against Epstein, expressed concern about legal aspects, and participated in a mee...
|
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation |
The subject of a federal investigation regarding a network of illegal high school massage recruits. His attorneys met...
|
| Villafaña | case agent |
Told OPR about her disagreement with Lourie's analysis, attended the June 26, 2007 meeting, and shared her impression...
|
| Sloman |
Attended the June 26, 2007 meeting at the Miami USAO.
|
|
| Menchel |
Attended the June 26, 2007 meeting, provided his perspective to OPR, and raised issues about victim credibility.
|
|
| Dershowitz | Epstein attorney |
Led the defense team's presentation at the June 26, 2007 meeting.
|
| Black | Epstein attorney |
Attended the June 26, 2007 meeting as one of Epstein's attorneys.
|
| Lefcourt | Epstein attorney |
Attended the June 26, 2007 meeting as one of Epstein's attorneys. Arguments from his letter were echoed in the meeting.
|
| Sanchez | Epstein attorney |
Attended the June 26, 2007 meeting as one of Epstein's attorneys.
|
| Acosta |
In July 2007, developed or adopted a two-year state plea agreement to resolve the federal investigation into Epstein.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office, whose personnel met with Epstein's attorneys and were involved in the decision-making pro...
|
| OPR | government agency |
The Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Villafaña and Menchel provided information and recollections about...
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007-06-26
A meeting between USAO personnel and Epstein's defense team, where the defense presented their arguments for the case to be handled by the state. The USAO considered it a 'listening session'.
Miami USAO
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the meeting on June 26, 2007, between USAO personnel and Epstein's attorneys.
|
|
|
The location of the squad supervisor who attended the June 26, 2007 meeting.
|
Relationships (4)
Dershowitz is identified as one of Epstein's attorneys who led the defense team's presentation.
They are colleagues who discussed and disagreed on the analysis of the 'purpose of travel issue' in the Epstein case.
Acosta, as part of the USAO, developed a plea agreement to resolve the federal investigation into Epstein.
Key Quotes (9)
"that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else,"Source
— Lourie
(Part of an argument the government could make to support the conclusion that massages were a motivating purpose of Epstein's travel.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #1
"getting to the jury"Source
— Lourie
(Expressing concern about the difficulty of successfully arguing the purpose of travel issue to a jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #2
"particularly weak"Source
— Villafaña and her colleagues
(Describing their assessment of certain aspects of the defense submissions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #3
"listening session"Source
— USAO
(Describing the USAO's perspective on the purpose of the June 26, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #4
"traditionally state offenses"Source
— Dershowitz
(Arguing that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case against Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #5
"under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed."Source
— Villafaña
(Describing the apparent belief of Epstein's attorneys after they left the June 26, 2007 meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #6
"[T]hey obviously did not persuade the USAO because ‘we . . . didn’t drop the investigation."Source
— Menchel
(Telling OPR that the defense presentation was not successful in stopping the federal investigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #7
"left [the meeting] with the impression that we were continuing towards"Source
— Villafaña
(Describing her takeaway from the meeting, indicating that the USAO intended to proceed with filing charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #8
"more as [the USAO] listening and them presenting their position."Source
— Menchel
(From a contemporaneous email describing his view of the upcoming June 26 meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
Quote #9
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,591 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page63 of 258
SA-61
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 61 of 348
SA-61
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 61 of 348
Lourie opined that the government could argue “that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else,” which supported the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole purpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about “getting to the jury” on this issue and noted that he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafaña told OPR that she disagreed with Lourie’s analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him.53 Villafaña also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered “particularly weak.”
On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaña, the case agent, and the West Palm Beach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black, Lefcourt, and Sanchez. Dershowitz led the defense team’s presentation. From the USAO perspective, the meeting was merely a “listening session.”54 Echoing the arguments made in Lefcourt’s letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case because these were “traditionally state offenses.” The case agent recalled being uncomfortable that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal investigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been involved.
Villafaña told OPR that when Epstein’s attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be “under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed.” But Menchel told OPR, “[T]hey obviously did not persuade the USAO because ‘we . . . didn’t drop the investigation.” According to Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel, during a short post-meeting discussion at which Lourie expressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general credibility of the victims, the prevailing sense among the USAO participants was that the defense presentation had not been persuasive. Villafaña told OPR that she “left [the meeting] with the impression that we were continuing towards” filing charges.
IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
USAO internal communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed, or adopted, the broad outline of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would leave the case in state court by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would accomplish three goals important to the federal prosecutors: Epstein’s incarceration; his registration as a sexual offender; and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetary
---
53 Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution’s ability to prove Epstein’s knowledge of the victims’ ages, particularly with regard to those who were 16 or 17 at the time they provided massages.
53 Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution’s ability to prove Epstein’s knowledge of the victims’ ages, particularly with regard to those who were 16 or 17 at the time they provided massages.
54 In his written response to OPR, Menchel indicated that he had no independent recollection of the June 26, 2007 meeting. In his OPR interview, Menchel said that although he had little memory of the meeting, to the best of his recollection the USAO simply listened to the defense presentation, and in a contemporaneous email, Menchel opined that he viewed the upcoming June 26 meeting as “more as [the USAO] listening and them presenting their position.”
35
DOJ-OGR-00021235
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document