DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
755 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
755 KB
Summary
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) whose counsel appealed its terms.
|
| Kenneth Starr | Epstein's counsel |
Sent a letter protesting parts of the NPA and appealed to officials in Washington, D.C.
|
| Lourie | USAO-SDFL supervisor |
Requested that Villafaña send the NPA to him and Oosterbaan.
|
| Villafaña |
Sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan at Lourie's request.
|
|
| Oosterbaan |
Received the NPA, expressed displeasure with it to Lourie, and discussed Starr's letter with Fisher.
|
|
| Fisher | Assistant Attorney General |
Interviewed by OPR, did not recall reading Starr's letter but stated she played no role in the NPA.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, whose report is cited throughout the document.
|
| Main Justice | government agency |
Referenced as having been contacted about the NPA after it was signed. A colloquial term for the headquarters of the ...
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Mentioned as the office of supervisor Lourie an...
|
| CEOS | government agency |
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. The CEOS Chief was contacted by USAO-SDFL regarding a letter from Kenneth S...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Epstein's counsel appealed to officials in Washington, D.C. to avoid enforcement of a requirement in the NPA. The appeal was rejected.
Washington, D.C.
Epstein's counsel
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where Epstein's counsel appealed to officials.
|
|
|
Southern District of Florida, mentioned in the case citation 'Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1212-13 (...
|
Relationships (4)
The document identifies Kenneth Starr as 'Epstein's counsel'.
Villafaña sent the NPA to Lourie at Lourie's request. Lourie is identified as a 'USAO-SDFL supervisor'.
Oosterbaan received the NPA from Villafaña (at Lourie's request) and responded to Lourie with his opinion on it.
The document mentions Fisher discussing Starr's letter with Oosterbaan, although Fisher did not recall the discussion.
Key Quotes (8)
"he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and ‘had no involvement with it.’"Source
— Unnamed individual
(A statement made to OPR, as cited in the OPR Report.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #1
"not thrilled"Source
— Oosterbaan
(Oosterbaan's response to Lourie about the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #2
"egregious"Source
— Oosterbaan
(Oosterbaan's description of Epstein's conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #3
"pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims."Source
— Oosterbaan
(Oosterbaan's observation about the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #4
"other than to say that she agrees with it."Source
— Oosterbaan
(Oosterbaan's opinion on how the Assistant Attorney General should handle the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #5
"agree[ing] with it"Source
— Fisher
(A comment Fisher believed referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she thought was appropriate.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #6
"played no role in"Source
— Fisher
(Fisher's statement to OPR regarding her involvement in the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #7
"no approval authority"Source
— OPR Report
(A finding in the OPR Report that a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL noted the CEOS had no approval authority.)
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,246 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 39 of 239
OPR that “he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and ‘had no involvement with it.’ OPR Report at 64 n. 105.7
Beyond this, the OPR Report and the record in the civil case note contacts with Main Justice about the NPA, but only after the NPA was negotiated, drafted, and signed. In the civil case, the district court detailed the history of the plea negotiations—and noted that, after the NPA was signed, Epstein’s counsel appealed to officials in Washington, D.C., hoping to avoid enforcement of the NPA’s requirement that Epstein plead guilty to state offenses, as the agreement required. Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1212-13 (S.D. Fla. 2019). As the district court noted, that appeal was rejected. Id. at 1213.
In particular, and following the execution of the NPA, the report reflects that the USAO-SDFL contacted the CEOS Chief in connection with a letter from Epstein’s counsel, Kenneth Starr, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report:
At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie’s request, Villafaña sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was “not thrilled” about the NPA; described Epstein’s conduct as unusually “egregious,” particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was “pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims.” He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA “other than to say that she agrees with it.” During her OPR interview, [Assistant Attorney General] Fisher did not recall reading Starr’s letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her “agree[ing] with it” referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she “played no role in” the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed.
7 The OPR Report further reflects that, at the time, a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL noted the CEOS had “no approval authority.” OPR Report at 60.
12
DOJ-OGR-00002973
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document