DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
937 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
5
Events
5
Relationships
11
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
937 KB
Summary
This legal document details communications among prosecutors Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. The prosecutors debated strategy concerning defense counsel's efforts to delay litigation and prevent the government from obtaining computer evidence. Ultimately, Acosta decided to meet with the defense, postponing investigative steps and deadlines, believing it was better to keep the matter within the USAO rather than letting it escalate to the main Department of Justice.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Oosterbaan | CEOS Chief |
Mentioned as [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an], who was willing to join a meeting with the defense.
|
| Acosta |
A key figure who provided guidance, made decisions regarding case strategy, and communicated with Villafaña, Lourie, ...
|
|
| Villafaña |
Informed Acosta of conversations, sought guidance, communicated with Lourie and defense counsel Black, and provided o...
|
|
| Epstein |
The subject of the investigation, whose assistants, colleagues, and computer equipment are mentioned.
|
|
| Lourie |
Emailed Acosta and Sloman, was contacted by Villafaña and Sanchez, and was involved in decisions about litigation str...
|
|
| Sloman |
Recipient of an email from Lourie, along with Acosta.
|
|
| Black | Defense Counsel |
Requested to stay the litigation concerning Epstein's computer equipment.
|
| Sanchez | Defense Counsel |
Reached out to Lourie to request a stay of litigation.
|
| Menchel |
Provided an opinion to OPR regarding why defense counsel might resist turning over a computer.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| CEOS | government agency |
Mentioned as the organization whose chief, Oosterbaan, was asked to participate in a meeting. Lourie noted that CEOS ...
|
| Department | government agency |
Referred to as the entity that might scrutinize the NPA scheme or direct the USAO to drop the case. Likely refers to ...
|
| USAO | government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office, which was handling the case and whose involvement the Department might direct to end.
|
| OPR | government agency |
The Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Acosta, Villafaña, and Menchel provided statements or information.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2007-08-08
Villafaña informed Acosta about her conversation with Oosterbaan and plans for a meeting with the defense.
Relationships (5)
Villafaña informed Acosta of developments and asked him for guidance, indicating Acosta was in a supervisory role.
Lourie emailed Acosta to make suggestions and ask for direction, and Acosta replied with a final decision, indicating a supervisory or senior colleague relationship.
They communicated via email about case strategy, suggesting they were colleagues working together on the case.
Villafaña, for the prosecution (USAO), opposed a request from Black, who was defense counsel.
Key Quotes (11)
"[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case."Source
— Acosta
(When telling OPR about his concerns regarding Departmental involvement.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #1
"to stay firm on our August 17th deadline."Source
— Acosta
(A directive for Oosterbaan's participation in a meeting with the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #2
"there was some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a plea,"Source
— Villafaña
(Noted by Villafaña when asking Acosta for guidance.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #3
"stick to our deadline if possible."Source
— Lourie
(In an email to Acosta and Sloman.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #4
"has no approval authority"Source
— Lourie
(Lourie's point about CEOS in an email to Acosta.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #5
"a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to different agencies."Source
— Lourie
(His opinion on the defense's strategy.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #6
"This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don’t meet with them. I’d rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our deadline has to slip a bit . . . it’s worth it."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's reply to Lourie, explaining his reasoning for meeting with the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #7
"still go ahead"Source
— Villafaña
(Inquiring with Lourie about her planned trip to New York.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #8
"further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."Source
— Villafaña
(Her opinion to OPR about the defense's efforts to delay litigation over the computers.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #9
"would have put this case completely to bed."Source
— Villafaña
(Her suspicion about the evidence contained on the computers.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #10
"there could be a lot of reasons why” defense counsel would resist “turn[ing] over an entire computer."Source
— Menchel
(His statement to OPR, offering an alternative view to Villafaña's.)
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
Quote #11
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,496 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page88 of 258
SA-86
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 86 of 348
SA-86
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 86 of 348
jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the
details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to
participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting.
details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to
participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting.
Thoughts?
Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental “scrutiny of the NPA scheme” and
that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop
this case.”⁹⁶
that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop
this case.”⁹⁶
2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are
Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña’s Efforts to
Obtain the Computer Evidence
Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña’s Efforts to
Obtain the Computer Evidence
On August 8, 2007, Villafaña informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who
was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after
August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order “to stay firm on our August 17th
deadline.” Villafaña also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein’s assistants in New York
and to interview some of Epstein’s colleagues and former employees there. Noting that “there was
some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a
plea,” Villafaña asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that
the USAO “stick to our deadline if possible.” Lourie pointed out that CEOS “has no approval
authority” and opined it was “a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to
different agencies.” Acosta replied, “This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don’t
meet with them. I’d rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our
deadline has to slip a bit . . . it’s worth it.”
was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after
August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order “to stay firm on our August 17th
deadline.” Villafaña also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein’s assistants in New York
and to interview some of Epstein’s colleagues and former employees there. Noting that “there was
some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a
plea,” Villafaña asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that
the USAO “stick to our deadline if possible.” Lourie pointed out that CEOS “has no approval
authority” and opined it was “a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to
different agencies.” Acosta replied, “This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don’t
meet with them. I’d rather keep it here. Brin[g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our
deadline has to slip a bit . . . it’s worth it.”
As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafaña emailed
Lourie inquiring whether she could “still go ahead” with the New York trip and whether she could
oppose Black’s request to stay the litigation concerning the government’s efforts to obtain
Epstein’s computer equipment until after Acosta’s meeting with the defense team. Villafaña was
reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl
who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant.
On August 13, 2007, Villafaña advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of
the litigation. However, Sanchez reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his
agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta’s meeting with defense counsel,
which was scheduled for September 7, 2007.
Lourie inquiring whether she could “still go ahead” with the New York trip and whether she could
oppose Black’s request to stay the litigation concerning the government’s efforts to obtain
Epstein’s computer equipment until after Acosta’s meeting with the defense team. Villafaña was
reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl
who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant.
On August 13, 2007, Villafaña advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of
the litigation. However, Sanchez reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his
agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta’s meeting with defense counsel,
which was scheduled for September 7, 2007.
Villafaña told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation
concerning the computers was “further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence.”⁹⁷ Villafaña
suspected the computers contained evidence that “would have put this case completely to bed.”
concerning the computers was “further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence.”⁹⁷ Villafaña
suspected the computers contained evidence that “would have put this case completely to bed.”
---
⁹⁶ In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the
NPA or its terms, he did have concerns that the Department would decide the USAO should not have accepted the
case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter.
⁹⁶ In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the
NPA or its terms, he did have concerns that the Department would decide the USAO should not have accepted the
case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter.
⁹⁷ Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, “there could be a lot of reasons why” defense counsel would resist
“turn[ing] over an entire computer.”
“turn[ing] over an entire computer.”
60
DOJ-OGR-00021260
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document