DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page127 of 258
SA-125
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 125 of 348

Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein
“unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind” the
NPA.

2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO
Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta
Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel

After reviewing Starr’s and Lefkowitz’s letters, Sloman notified Villafaña that “in light of
the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence” he had asked Robert Senior, who had succeeded
Menchel as Chief of the USAO’s Criminal Division, to review de novo the evidence underlying
the proposed revised indictment, and Sloman asked Villafaña to provide Senior with all the state
and FBI investigative materials.

In the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to
discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz’s December 11, 2007 submissions. 156 The
meeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Starr,
Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney Martin Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta,
Sloman, Villafaña, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and
Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during
this meeting, Epstein’s attorneys raised a new argument—that the state charge to which Epstein
had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case.

3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review
of the USAO’s Actions

Shortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues
raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may “have no alternative
but to seek review in Washington.” Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the
defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review and
“to in fact review this case in an expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date.”
Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previously submitted
defense submissions, reviewing issues discussed at the meeting, and advising that Epstein sought
a “prompt, independent, expedited review” of the evidence by “you or someone you trust.” The
letter reiterated Epstein’s position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under
state law or a violation of federal law, and with respect to the NPA’s § 2255 provision, that it was
“improper” to require Epstein to pay damages “to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a
claim” under the statute.

156 As Assistant Attorney General Fisher’s Chief of Staff, Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr
would speak to Acosta to “resolve the[] fairly narrow issues” raised in Starr’s correspondence with Acosta. Acosta
had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December 11 forwarded to Fisher.

99

DOJ-OGR-00021299