DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
1.05 MB
Extraction Summary
8
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.05 MB
Summary
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Villafaña | AUSA |
Mentioned in relation to publicly released emails to Lefkowitz and for recommending an attorney representative.
|
| Lefkowitz | Epstein's attorney |
Met with Acosta, sent a letter to Acosta on October 23, 2007, and worked with Sloman on language for an Addendum.
|
| Acosta | U.S. Attorney |
A central figure in the document who met with Lefkowitz, corresponded with him, and made decisions regarding the Epst...
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the legal case, whose sentence and plea deal are discussed.
|
| Sanchez |
Recipient of a December 2007 letter from Acosta.
|
|
| Sloman |
Drafted a response letter for Acosta and worked with Lefkowitz on language for the Addendum.
|
|
| Julie K. Brown | Journalist |
Author of a Miami Herald investigative report cited in a footnote.
|
| Trump | Future President |
Mentioned in a quote from a Miami Herald article as Acosta being a "future Trump cabinet member".
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, mentioned regarding its willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys and promises of non-inte...
|
| State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of the USAO promising not to intervene with their office regarding the Epstein matter.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned as an agency that would not intervene regarding Epstein's sentence, according to Lefkowitz's letter.
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Acosta gave his account of the breakfast meeting.
|
| Miami Herald | company |
A newspaper whose November 2018 investigative report on the Epstein case is cited.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of an October 2007 meeting where Acosta proposed an Addendum to Lefkowitz.
|
Relationships (4)
They held meetings (e.g., the October 2007 breakfast meeting) and exchanged letters regarding the legal proceedings of Lefkowitz's client, Epstein.
They had been working together on the language for the Addendum to Epstein's agreement.
Key Quotes (6)
"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."Source
— Acosta
(In a December 2007 letter to Sanchez.)
DOJ-OGR-00003292.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 what he claimed Acosta had assured him.)
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
Quote #2
"inaccurate"Source
— Acosta
(Term added to a revised response letter to describe Lefkowitz's claims.)
DOJ-OGR-00003292.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 for Acosta)
(In a draft response letter to Lefkowitz.)
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
Quote #4
"her boyfriend’s partner"Source
— Acosta
(Speculating to OPR about an attorney whom Villafaña had recommended.)
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
Quote #5
"the way this was reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast,"Source
— Acosta
(Describing what he felt was an inaccurate media portrayal of the breakfast meeting, as the NPA was signed weeks prior.)
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,719 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE 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-00003292
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document