DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg

1.07 MB

Extraction Summary

8
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
4
Relationships
6
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 1.07 MB
Summary

This legal document details recollections from a meeting on September 12, 2007, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Participants, including prosecutors like Lourie and Villafaña and others like Krischer and Belohlavek, discussed the terms of Epstein's plea, specifically whether he would serve an 18-month sentence in a county jail versus a state prison, and which charges he would plead to. The document highlights disagreements and differing memories among the participants regarding the decisions made and the authority to make them.

People (8)

Name Role Context
Villafaña
A participant in meetings regarding Epstein's NPA, who provided recollections to OPR.
Krischer
A participant in a meeting discussing Epstein's NPA. Full name is Barry Krischer.
Belohlavek
A participant in a meeting discussing Epstein's NPA, who explained sentencing guidelines.
Epstein Defendant
The subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and legal proceedings discussed in the document.
Lourie USAO supervisor
A supervisor from the USAO who participated in the meeting and made decisions regarding Epstein's plea.
Barry Krischer
Full name for Krischer, who responded 'yes' to a point about Epstein's incarceration.
Acosta
Mentioned in a footnote as someone who concurred with an agreement after speaking with Lourie and Villafaña.
Sloman
Mentioned in a footnote as someone who concurred with an agreement after speaking with Lourie and Villafaña.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
OPR government agency
The entity to whom Villafaña, Krischer, and Belohlavek provided their recollections of the events.
USAO government agency
The U.S. Attorney's Office, for which Lourie was a supervisor and was proposing the terms of the NPA.

Timeline (1 events)

2007-09-12
A meeting to discuss the draft Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on plea terms, sentencing, and incarceration location.
Villafaña Lourie Krischer Belohlavek defense counsel another USAO supervisor

Locations (3)

Location Context
A potential location for Epstein's incarceration, which defense counsel had concerns about.
An alternative location for Epstein's incarceration, discussed as a possibility if sentences were structured in a spe...
Synonym used for state prison, contrasted with the county jail.

Relationships (4)

Villafaña professional Lourie
They were both present at the meeting representing the prosecution (USAO), with Lourie being a supervisor. They spoke after the meeting and communicated with Acosta and Sloman.
Krischer professional Belohlavek
They attended the meeting together and are presented as a pair in the text, likely representing the defense or another party's interests.
USAO (Lourie, Villafaña) adversarial (prosecution/defendant) Epstein
The USAO representatives were negotiating the terms of a plea agreement and sentence for Epstein related to criminal charges.
Lourie professional Villafaña
They had differing recollections of who made the final decision on the plea terms, indicating a potential disagreement or miscommunication between colleagues.

Key Quotes (6)

"illogical"
Source
— Lourie (Describing his view on the conclusion that he had the unilateral authority to change the terms of the agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
Quote #1
"particularly care"
Source
— Villafaña, Lourie, and another supervisor (Describing their indifference as to whether Epstein was incarcerated in a state or local facility, as long as he was incarcerated 24/7.)
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
Quote #2
"Our thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting, I remember [the defense] talking about . . . a one year count followed by a six-month count . . . that [Epstein] could serve them back to back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility. But then I said, “But if you do that, it’s still going to have to be round the clock incarceration.” And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he] said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he would be kept in solitary confinement."
Source
— Villafaña (Recounting a conversation during the meeting about the structure and location of Epstein's sentence to OPR.)
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
Quote #3
"concession"
Source
— Villafaña (Stating her view that allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county jail was not a concession because he would be incarcerated regardless.)
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
Quote #4
"not offended at all"
Source
— Krischer (Describing his reaction upon learning of the proposed federal resolution for Epstein's case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
Quote #5
"was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was"
Source
— Krischer (relaying Epstein's position) (Explaining to OPR the understanding of the plea deal.)
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
Quote #6

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,608 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 91 of 348
Villafaña told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed concern about proceeding as the USAO was proposing. According to Villafaña, Belohlavek explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state’s sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaña recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges, Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.106 Lourie, however, disputed Villafaña’s recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was “illogical” to conclude that he had the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally.107
During the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state prison. Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the entirety of his sentence, and they did not “particularly care” whether it was in a state or local facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months—totaling 18 months—could be served in the county jail. Villafaña told OPR:
Our thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting, I remember [the defense] talking about . . . a one year count followed by a six-month count . . . that [Epstein] could serve them back to back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility. But then I said, “But if you do that, it’s still going to have to be round the clock incarceration.” And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he] said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he would be kept in solitary confinement.
Villafaña did not recall whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county jail was not a “concession” because he would be incarcerated regardless.
Neither Lourie nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember the meeting at all. Krischer did, however, recall that he was “not offended at all” when he learned of the proposed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein “was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was
106 Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not involve sexual offender registration.
107 As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement.
65
DOJ-OGR-00003267

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document