DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
59.8 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
7
Events
9
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Internal communication/report excerpt
File Size:
59.8 KB
Summary
This document excerpt details concerns raised by Acosta regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically about challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the defense team's tactics. Acosta's letter expresses frustration over the lack of finality and issues being appealed to Department Headquarters, while also setting a deadline of December 7, 2007, for a decision on the Agreement. It also describes Acosta's discussions with OPR and a subsequent response to Acosta from Starr and Lefkowitz.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta | Sender/Author of a letter, explained to OPR |
His letter concluded on NPA negotiations; explained his view on Departmental review and Epstein's intent to OPR.
|
| Epstein | Defendant/Client |
His counsel challenged NPA portions; entered a guilty plea; his concerns were addressed by the Department; his intent...
|
| Starr | Recipient/Correspondent |
Responded to Acosta's letter.
|
| Lefkowitz | Recipient/Correspondent |
Responded to Acosta's letter.
|
| Sloman | Recipient of copy |
Received a copy of the response to Acosta.
|
| Assitant Attorney General Fisher | Recipient of copy |
Received a copy of the response to Acosta.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Office (likely a US Attorney's Office) |
The office whose decision was being appealed, and where prosecutors were directed to delay filings.
|
|
| Department Headquarters |
Received a letter raising issues.
|
|
| USAO (United States Attorney's Office) |
Had the option to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA.
|
|
| OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility or similar) |
Acosta explained his position to OPR.
|
|
| CEOS |
Subject matter experts consulted for interpretation of the law.
|
Timeline (7 events)
2007-12-07
Expected written decision by 5 p.m. regarding whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm or unwind the Agreement.
Defense team
Office
Appeals of Office's decisions to Washington.
Washington
Defense counsel
Office
Defense counsel's tactics in negotiating with AUSAs, including challenging resolutions collaterally.
Defense counsel
AUSAs
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the Office's decision was being appealed.
|
Relationships (9)
Acosta's letter discusses defense counsel's actions; AUSAs negotiated with defense counsel.
Acosta's letter mentions a letter addressed to Department Headquarters.
Acosta explained to OPR.
Copies to ... Assitant Attorney General Fisher.
Epstein's counsel, your client.
Key Quotes (4)
"Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
Quote #1
"I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
Quote #2
"I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday . . . to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We expect a written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
Quote #3
"Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,878 characters)
provision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded:
Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor.
I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind.
Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in fact resolved, in your client's favor.
I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not impossible, to unwind.
I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time is of the essence . . . I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday . . . to provide you with time to review these options with your client. We expect a written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the Agreement.
Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assitant Attorney General Fisher) that
97
DOJ-OGR-00023135
Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review, but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assitant Attorney General Fisher) that
97
DOJ-OGR-00023135
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document