DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
902 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal report / opr report excerpt
File Size:
902 KB
Summary
This document outlines the negotiations between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the language of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Section 2255 concerning victim rights and monetary damages. On December 19, 2007, Acosta proposed revised language to clarify victim rights as if Epstein had been convicted federally, but the defense rejected this, arguing it was legally incongruous to fit a civil statute into a criminal plea. The document highlights the mounting frustration of the prosecution regarding what they perceived as intentional delays by the defense.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Acosta | US Attorney |
Negotiating the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) language; frustrated by defense delays.
|
| Sigal Mandelker | Deputy Assistant Attorney General |
Received proposed NPA language from Acosta.
|
| Sloman | Prosecutor (implied) |
Participated in phone conversation with Acosta, Starr, and Lefkowitz.
|
| Ken Starr | Defense Counsel for Epstein |
Participated in phone conversation with Acosta and Sloman.
|
| Jay Lefkowitz | Defense Counsel for Epstein |
Participated in phone conversation; sent letters rejecting Acosta's proposal.
|
| Sanchez | Defense Counsel for Epstein |
Recipient of Acosta's letter proposing NPA revision.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the NPA and potential guilty plea.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Division |
Division within DOJ consulted on NPA language.
|
|
| USAO |
United States Attorney's Office; concerned about Epstein delaying his plea.
|
|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; Acosta was interviewed by them regarding these events.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Referred to as 'the Department'; Epstein planned an 11th hour appeal to them.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2007-12-19
Acosta sends letter proposing revised language for NPA Section 2255 regarding victim rights and monetary damages.
N/A
2007-12-19
Phone conversation between prosecution (Acosta, Sloman) and defense (Starr, Lefkowitz).
Phone
Relationships (3)
Acosta sent proposed language to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker.
Negotiating NPA terms via phone and letter.
Negotiating NPA terms; Lefkowitz rejected Acosta's proposals.
Key Quotes (5)
"Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve “our disagreements over interpretation[]” by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to § 2255"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
Quote #1
"Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
Quote #2
"the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
Quote #3
"any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
Quote #4
"inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,333 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page128 of 258
SA-126
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 348
SA-126
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 126 of 348
4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It
Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel’s continuing concern about the § 2255 provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz, Acosta sent to Sanchez a letter proposing to resolve “our disagreements over interpretation[]” by replacing the existing language of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read:
Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein’s attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name . . . as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.
Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors’ urging to declare the NPA breached by the defense delays.157
Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta’s proposal raised “several troubling questions” and that “the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement.”158 In a follow-up letter to Acosta, to address the USAO’s concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that “any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct cause of the disagreements between the parties,” and that defense counsel had “at all times made and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as possible.”
Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was “increasingly frustrated” by Epstein’s desire to take an “11th hour appeal” to the Department so soon before the
157 As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta’s December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea.
158 After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was “inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable.” In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta’s December 19, 2007 NPA modification letter.
158 After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was “inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable.” In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta’s December 19, 2007 NPA modification letter.
100
DOJ-OGR-00021300
DOJ-OGR-00021300
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document