DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
960 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
960 KB
Summary
This document describes the conflicting accounts surrounding a breakfast meeting between prosecutor Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz. A letter from Lefkowitz claims Acosta promised the USAO would not interfere with Epstein's state-level plea deal, a claim Acosta's office refuted in an unsent draft letter calling it "inaccurate." The text also details Acosta's later, differing recollections of the meeting and contrasts them with media reports that a secret deal was struck at that time.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Villafaña | AUSA (Assistant United States Attorney) |
Mentioned for publicly released emails to Lefkowitz and for recommending an attorney representative.
|
| Lefkowitz | Epstein's attorney |
Met with Acosta, exchanged letters regarding the Epstein case, and worked with Sloman on an Addendum.
|
| Acosta | U.S. Attorney (implied) |
A key figure who met with Lefkowitz, wrote letters about the Epstein case, and whose actions and recollections are th...
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the legal case, whose attorneys, plea, and sentence are being discussed.
|
| Sanchez |
Recipient of a December 2007 letter from Acosta.
|
|
| Sloman |
Drafted a response letter for Acosta and worked with Lefkowitz on language for an Addendum.
|
|
| Julie K. Brown | Journalist |
Author of a Miami Herald article cited in a footnote.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, whose willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys and potential agreements are discussed.
|
| State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned as an entity the USAO promised not to intervene with, according to Lefkowitz.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned as an agency the USAO would not intervene with regarding Epstein's sentence. Also mentioned as having an on...
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Acosta gave his recollections of the breakfast meeting.
|
| Miami Herald | company |
Newspaper that published a November 2018 investigative report on the Epstein case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The CVRA litigation, during which the media learned about the meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of an October meeting mentioned in Acosta's letter.
|
Relationships (4)
They held meetings (a breakfast meeting and an October meeting) and exchanged correspondence (letters in October and December 2007) regarding the legal case of Lefkowitz's client, Epstein. Their communications show a contentious professional relationship with conflicting accounts of agreements.
Sloman drafted a response letter for Acosta to send to Lefkowitz, indicating a working relationship likely as a subordinate.
The document states that Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for an Addendum before Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz.
Key Quotes (7)
"sua sponte proposed the Addendum"Source
— Acosta
(In a December 2007 letter to Sanchez, describing his actions at an October meeting with Lefkowitz.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #1
"[the USAO] would not intervene with the State Attorney’s Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither [the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the sentence does not violate state law."Source
— Lefkowitz
(In an October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, recounting alleged assurances made by Acosta during their breakfast meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #2
"inaccurate"Source
— Acosta
(A term Acosta added to a draft response letter to describe Lefkowitz's claims about promises made at the meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #3
"[S]uch a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this."Source
— Sloman (in a draft letter for Acosta)
(From a draft response letter to Lefkowitz, refuting the alleged promises.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #4
"her boyfriend’s partner"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's speculation to OPR about who Villafaña had recommended to serve as an attorney representative, which may have prompted the breakfast meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #5
"the way this was reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast,"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's statement explaining why press reports about the breakfast meeting were inaccurate, as the NPA was signed weeks prior.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #6
"on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein’s crimes and the number of people involved. . . . [T]he deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe . . . ."Source
— Miami Herald (reported by Julie K. Brown)
(An excerpt from a November 2018 investigative report describing the significance of the deal made around the time of the breakfast meeting.)
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,791 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page118 of 258
SA-116
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 116 of 348
SA-116
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 116 of 348
However, as with Villafaña’s publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It was seen either as further evidence of the USAO’s willingness to meet with Epstein’s attorneys while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret agreements with the defense.
Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter to Sanchez, Acosta stated that he had “sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach . . . in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process.”139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta
assured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the State Attorney’s Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither [the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the sentence does not violate state law.140
However, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by Sloman, adding the term “inaccurate” to describe Lefkowitz’s claims that Acosta had promised not to intervene with the State Attorney’s Office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or intervene regarding Epstein’s sentence.141 The draft response stated, “[S]uch a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this.”142
Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that the meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villafaña had recommended “her boyfriend’s partner” to serve as attorney representative.143 Acosta said that “the way this was reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast,” which was inaccurate because the NPA had been signed weeks before the breakfast meeting.144 When asked about
139 In fact, Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta’s breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz. It is possible that Acosta was not aware of Sloman’s efforts or had forgotten about them when writing the December 7, 2007 letter.
140 This letter is discussed further in the following section of this Report.
141 OPR did not find evidence establishing that the response was ever sent.
142 Sloman’s initial draft response referred to a conversation the previous day in which Acosta had “clarified!” Lefkowitz’s claims about what Acosta had purportedly said in the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting.
143 As noted previously, the attorney whom Villafaña recommended was a friend of another AUSA whom Villafaña was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafaña or the other AUSA.
144 For example, the Miami Herald’s November 2018 investigative report stated that “on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck—an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein’s crimes and the number of people involved. . . . [T]he deal—called a non-prosecution agreement—essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe . . . .” Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,” Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. The NPA, however, was finalized and signed
90
DOJ-OGR-00021290
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document