Lourie
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Business associate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Superior subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew Oosterbaan
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional hierarchical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional consultative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alice Fisher
|
Professional subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Supervisor subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alice Fisher
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lilly Ann Sanchez
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR's investigation and report on Acosta's handling of the Epstein case, including the decision t... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter concerning Epstein's plea deal, incl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lourie informed Villafaña that Acosta did not want to pursue a Rule 11(c) plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations regarding Epstein's case | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation and management of Epstein's case suffered from absence of ownership and communicati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations for Mr. Epstein's plea agreement. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lourie and Lefkowitz reach an agreement on plea terms. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña circulates the defense's proposed plea agreement to supervisors. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta provided 'thoughts' on the USAO's proposed 'hybrid' federal plea agreement to Lourie. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lourie forwarded an email with suggestions (Alex's changes) to Villafaña, instructing her to inco... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR interviews regarding Epstein's case and sentencing discussions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña alerted Lourie and others about language in the NPA concerning non-prosecution and immi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion and disagreement between Villafaña and Lourie regarding an immigration waiver in the p... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie rejected the proposed immigration language. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR questioned subjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute co-conspirators. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | NPA Negotiation | West Palm Beach/Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Investigation Interview | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR Interviews with prosecutors involved in the Epstein case. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Internal USAO discussions regarding the viability of federal prosecution vs. a negotiated plea deal. | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding the two-year plea deal resolution. | USAO (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentence Reduction | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting process of the NPA and federal plea agreement | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021354.jpg
This document is part of a legal filing detailing an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into prosecutor Menchel's handling of the Epstein case. The investigation focuses on whether Menchel's prior dating relationship with defense counsel Sanchez in 2003 created a conflict of interest or improperly influenced a plea deal offered years later. The document outlines Menchel's and his supervisor Acosta's conflicting and corroborating statements regarding the decision-making process for the plea, and concludes it would have been prudent for Menchel to disclose the relationship to his supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing potential conflicts of interest within the USAO regarding the Epstein case. It details interviews with officials Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta, concluding that personal relationships with defense attorneys did not improperly influence the case. The text highlights Acosta's eventual recusal in late 2008 due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis, and a separate inquiry regarding his potential role at Harvard Law School given Alan Dershowitz's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021351.jpg
This legal document discusses the effectiveness of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, in portraying his case as legally complex to prosecutors like Alex Acosta. It also examines whether preexisting relationships between prosecutors (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta) and defense counsel improperly influenced the outcome, concluding, based on an OPR investigation, that they did not. The document highlights how Epstein's wealth funded a formidable defense that successfully negotiated concessions from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report (page 146 of the original report, filed in court in 2021 and 2023) detailing the justifications provided by USAO prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta) for entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein rather than pursuing a federal trial. The prosecutors cite significant evidentiary challenges, including unreliable witnesses, victims who 'loved' Epstein or would claim they lied about their age, and the trauma a trial would cause victims. Acosta admits his knowledge of the case facts was not 'granular' and that he relied on the diligence of his team, particularly Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021345.jpg
This legal document details the significant reluctance of Jeffrey Epstein's victims to participate in a public trial, primarily due to privacy concerns, fear of public exposure, and emotional distress. Statements from officials Villafaña and Lourie, along with a declaration from an FBI agent, indicate that this victim sentiment was a major factor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in its handling of the case. The document highlights specific instances of victim trauma, such as a teenager's distress when her parents discovered her involvement after the FBI left a business card at their home.
DOJ-OGR-00021344.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations, specifically noting that key decisions were made before US Attorney Acosta met with defense counsel Lefkowitz. The report cites prosecutor Villafaña's explanation that the decision to pursue an NPA was driven by evidentiary risks and victim privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021342.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that there was no evidence that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein was influenced by bribes, corruption, or his wealth and status. It notes that while Epstein was not initially well-known to the FBI agents or prosecutors in 2006, press coverage in July 2006 alerted them to his high-profile connections, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. An FBI agent is quoted acknowledging they knew who had been on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00021340.jpg
This legal document, a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) did not violate department policy by declining to prosecute two of Epstein's foreign national assistants, which would have triggered their deportation. The report also states that the evidence does not establish that prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, were influenced by improper motives like Epstein's wealth when they agreed to terms favorable to him.
DOJ-OGR-00021338.jpg
This legal document analyzes the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein in light of the Department of Justice's 'Ashcroft Memo,' which mandates charging the 'most serious readily provable charge.' It contrasts the federal indictment for sex trafficking prepared by prosecutor Villafaña, which carried a 168-210 month sentence, with the eventual plea deal of an 18-month sentence on state charges. The document also reveals internal disagreement, with prosecutors Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceiving risks in the federal case, while Villafaña and the CEOS Chief believed the charges were appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021337.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The OPR concludes that U.S. Attorney Acosta did not violate any clear standards or commit professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation through the NPA, which required Epstein to plead to state charges. The report affirms that Acosta had the authority to make this decision and that the attorneys involved exercised sufficient competence and diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00021334.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It concludes that attorneys Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct because they acted under the direction and approval of U.S. Attorney Acosta, who held broad discretionary authority. The report specifically notes that OPR found no violation of clear statutes or policies in the negotiation and entry into the NPA, including the controversial provision regarding the non-prosecution of unidentified third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00021333.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the public scrutiny following the 2018 Miami Herald report and OPR's investigation into whether the 'sweetheart deal' was motivated by improper influence. The text confirms that Alexander Acosta reviewed, revised, and approved the NPA, accepting full responsibility for it during his OPR interview.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021301.jpg
This DOJ OPR report excerpt details the breakdown of plea negotiations in early January 2008. Epstein's defense team (Sanchez, Starr, Lefkowitz) pressed US Attorney Acosta and Sloman for a 'watered-down resolution' that involved no jail time and no sex offender registration, threatening 'ugliness in DC' regarding alleged leaks. Prosecutor Villafaña prepared contingency plans to restart the investigation, including interviewing victims in New York and abroad, while Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior conducted a full review of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.
DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing events in late November 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes attempts by Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Lefkowitz) to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to complain about the NPA's civil damages provision and victim notification plans. The text highlights internal DOJ dissent, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan calling the deal 'egregious' and 'advantageous for the defendant,' while Prosecutor Villafaña expressed a desire to indict Epstein due to defense tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00021294.jpg
This legal document details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in late 2007, caused by a new strategy from his legal team to appeal to senior Department of Justice officials to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It chronicles communications between the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's attorneys, including Kenneth Starr and Jack Goldberger, regarding scheduling conflicts and Epstein's compliance with the agreement. Ultimately, these efforts delayed the plea hearing by months, with a final date set for January 4, 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021287.jpg
This document details the conflicts that arose immediately following the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), focusing on the September-October 2007 period. The central issue was the selection of an attorney representative for the victims, where AUSA Villafaña's choice, Lefkowitz, was challenged by her colleague Sloman due to a potential conflict of interest, as Lefkowitz was recommended by an AUSA Villafaña was dating.
DOJ-OGR-00021286.jpg
This document outlines the specific terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein, including deadlines for his guilty plea (Oct 2007) and self-reporting (Jan 2008). It explicitly grants immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator' and four assistants, waives Epstein's appeal rights, and notes the parties' intent to keep the agreement private. The document also details a communication from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, expressing concern over media leaks after the New York Post reported on the 18-month plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021285.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal communications regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts by the prosecution team (Villafaña, Acosta) to limit the disclosure of the agreement's terms, specifically regarding financial damages, to the Palm Beach Police Chief and the public. The document outlines the specific provisions of the NPA, including the guilty plea to solicitation of minors, the 30-month recommended sentence structure, and the handling of victim damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021284.jpg
This document details the finalization and signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein on September 24, 2007. It describes how Acosta made crucial last-minute edits to the agreement, removing requirements for the state court and State Attorney's Office, and how Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz, transmitted the signed agreement with a request for it to be kept confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00021283.jpg
This legal document details the negotiations for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. It shows Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, arguing against certain terms and proposing alternatives to prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. The document includes a direct email from Lefkowitz to Acosta questioning the rejection of a plea deal and concludes with the defense introducing a confidentiality clause into the NPA for the first time.
DOJ-OGR-00021282.jpg
This legal document details communications from Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, specifically Sanchez and Lefkowitz, to prosecutors Acosta and Lourie on September 22-23, 2007. The defense vehemently argues against a sexual offender registration requirement, claiming it was based on a 'misunderstanding' from a September 12 meeting where they were allegedly told by prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek that the charge was not registrable. The document contains excerpts from emails where the defense calls the registration a 'life sentence' and pleads for reconsideration.
Clarification on meeting
Lourie clarified he had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges and suggested they make their next presentation to Menchel.
Clarification
Clarified no promise to call before filing charges; suggested presenting to Menchel.
Request for meeting
Defense counsel Lefcourt sent a letter via email to 'confirm' that Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before a final charging decision was made.
FW: Request for meeting
Lourie forwarded Lefcourt's letter, noting the defense team was 'really ready for the next level' and suggested Menchel meet with them.
Forwarding Lefcourt letter
Noted defense was ready for 'next level' meeting; suggested Menchel meet them.
Letter attachment
Letter to confirm Epstein's attorneys would get a meeting before final charging decision.
Recommendation on charging
Recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea to maintain control over the plea deal.
Request from Epstein's attorneys
Lourie reported to Menchel that Epstein's attorneys wanted him to 'tell them the statutes'.
Fwd: Review of Prosecution Memorandum
Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's analysis email to Menchel and Villafaña.
Villafaña's Prosecution Memorandum
With Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafaña's prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan for assessment of legal issues.
Indictment Strategy
Discussing strategy to scare Epstein's attorneys by including unknown victims in the first indictment and holding back those with impeachment issues (MySpace/prior testimony) for a superseding indictment.
Charging Delays
FBI supervisor explained charges would not be quickly approved; Lourie reported to Menchel that FBI was 'not happy'.
Internal Strategy Meeting
Prosecutors expressed concern about meeting defense counsel; Lourie dismissed views and called for 'strategic thinking'.
Case updates from Villafaña
Lourie asked Sloman if he and Acosta wanted Villafaña to continue updating them directly on the case.
Updates
Asking if Sloman and Alex [Acosta] want Villafaña updating them on the case.
Operation Leap Year
Noting that Operation Leap Year was 'a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy.'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity