Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Lourie

Person
Mentions
286
Relationships
59
Events
107
Documents
141
Also known as:
Matthew Lourie
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
59 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Villafaña
Business associate
19 Very Strong
21
View
person Villafaña
Professional
10 Very Strong
15
View
person Acosta
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person Acosta
Business associate
9 Strong
5
View
person Menchel
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person Sloman
Business associate
7
3
View
person Oosterbaan
Professional
7
2
View
person Villafaña
Subordinate supervisor
6
2
View
person Menchel
Business associate
6
2
View
person Acosta
Superior subordinate
5
1
View
person Andrew Oosterbaan
Friend
5
1
View
person Villafaña
Professional conflict
5
1
View
person Lefkowitz
Professional
5
1
View
person Sanchez
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Villafaña
Professional hierarchical
5
1
View
person Oosterbaan
Professional consultative
5
1
View
person Lefkowitz
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Alice Fisher
Professional subordinate
5
1
View
person Sloman
Professional
5
1
View
person Sanchez
Professional
5
1
View
person Villafaña
Supervisor subordinate
5
1
View
person Jay Lefkowitz
Adversarial professional
5
1
View
person Sanchez
Professional adversarial
5
1
View
person Alice Fisher
Professional
5
1
View
person Lilly Ann Sanchez
Professional
5
1
View
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-00003251.jpg

This document details conflicting accounts surrounding a July 26, 2007 meeting concerning a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. While Menchel and Acosta provided vague recollections to the OPR, Villafaña claimed she was left “shocked and stunned” by the abrupt decision to offer a two-year sentence, which she described as “random” and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines. The document establishes that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer the two-year term of imprisonment.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg

This document details the internal decision-making process of the USAO in July 2007 regarding the Epstein case, specifically Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a two-year prison term. It highlights a pivotal meeting on July 26, 2007, where supervisor Matthew Menchel ordered prosecutors and FBI agents to halt federal investigative steps because Acosta had decided to offer a 'two-year state deal' instead of federal charges. The text notes that prosecutors were actively preparing a revised indictment and seeking to investigate Epstein's assistants just days before this directive was issued.

Government report (doj opr report) filed as court exhibit
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003248.jpg

This document details prosecutor Villafaña's efforts during the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to obtain computer equipment removed from his Palm Beach residence. Believing the equipment contained crucial evidence like surveillance video, Villafaña made formal requests to Epstein's defense counsel, consulted with other Department of Justice sections, and communicated with defense representatives who delayed and ultimately failed to comply with the request.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg

This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg

This legal document from April 2021 details events from May 2007 concerning the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, revealing significant internal disagreement within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutor Villafaña strongly objected to holding further meetings with Epstein's defense team, led by counsel Lefcourt, fearing it would compromise their strategy, and documented her dissent in a draft email to her supervisors, Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman. The document highlights the strategic conflicts among prosecutors as they considered how to proceed with the high-profile case.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg

This legal document details internal conflicts within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña was perceived by her managers, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, as rushing to indict, creating tension and disagreement over the case's timeline and direction. The document highlights differing perspectives on the urgency of the case and the decision-making process, as investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003228.jpg

This document contains an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications regarding the initial federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights emails from prosecutor Lourie to Menchel discussing a 50-page prosecution memo, the strategy to use only 'clean victims' (those without impeachment baggage), and the assertion that the State Attorney's Office intentionally sabotaged their own grand jury case. The document also covers OPR interviews where Menchel recalls this as his introduction to the case, and then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta admits he likely did not read the prosecution memo, relying instead on his senior staff.

Department of justice opr (office of professional responsibility) report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg

This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.

Doj office of professional responsibility (opr) report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003225.jpg

This legal document details communications in late 2006 and early 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt, and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. The defense sought a meeting to "make a pitch," leading to an internal disagreement between prosecutors Villafaña, who opposed the meeting without first receiving documents, and Lourie, who granted the meeting believing it was strategically valuable to hear the defense's theories. Ultimately, a meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, despite Villafaña's objections and her belief that the defense would not provide the requested evidence and would only use the meeting to discredit victims.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003223.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the initial federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in July-August 2006. It highlights the distrust federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman) held toward the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein. It also details the unusual reporting structure where 'Miami' senior management took direct authority, bypassing local supervisors, and notes the FBI's collection of flight manifests and victim testimony despite intimidation tactics by the defense.

Government report (doj office of professional responsibility - opr)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00003208.jpg

This document details the professional background of AUSA Ann Marie C. Villafaña, focusing on her role as the lead prosecutor in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation starting in 2006. It clarifies that while Alexander Acosta made the decision to use a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), Villafaña was the primary negotiator with Epstein's counsel and drafted the agreement. The text also outlines the timeline of the investigation, the subsequent CVRA litigation, and the eventual finding of government misconduct in 2019.

Court filing / doj opr report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg

This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.

Doj office of professional responsibility (opr) report / court filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg

This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023194.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a timeline of meetings between the USAO (including Alexander Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz). It covers the period from February 2007 to January 2008, categorizing meetings as 'Pre-NPA' and 'Post-NPA'. The table logs specific participants and topics, including the presentation of the NPA term sheet, discussions of investigation improprieties, and the negotiation of state plea provisions.

Doj opr report (office of professional responsibility) / investigation record
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023132.jpg

This page from a DOJ OPR report details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea following the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team, including Kenneth Starr calling senior DOJ official Alice Fisher, and disagreements between the USAO and defense regarding the timeline for the plea entry, which was eventually set for January 4, 2008. The document also highlights internal communications regarding Epstein's failure to use 'best efforts' to comply with the NPA timeline.

Department of justice opr report (investigation report)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
55
As Recipient
36
Total
91

Clarification

From: Lourie
To: Lefcourt

Clarified no promise to call before filing charges; suggested presenting to Menchel.

Email
2007-05-22
Communication Source

Forwarding Lefcourt letter

From: Lourie
To: Menchel, Sloman

Noted defense was ready for 'next level' meeting; suggested Menchel meet them.

Email
2007-05-22
Communication Source

Letter attachment

From: Lefcourt
To: Lourie

Letter to confirm Epstein's attorneys would get a meeting before final charging decision.

Email
2007-05-22
Communication Source

Request for meeting

From: Lefcourt
To: Lourie

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.

Email
2007-05-22
Communication Source

FW: Request for meeting

From: Lourie
To: ["Menchel", "Sloman"]

Lourie forwarded Lefcourt's letter, noting the defense team was 'really ready for the next level' and suggested Menchel meet with them.

Email forwarding
2007-05-22
Communication Source

Clarification on meeting

From: Lourie
To: Lefcourt

Lourie clarified he had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges and suggested they make their next presentation to Menchel.

Email
2007-05-22
Communication Source

Recommendation on charging

From: Lourie
To: Acosta and Menchel

Recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea to maintain control over the plea deal.

Email
2007-05-11
Communication Source

Request from Epstein's attorneys

From: Lourie
To: ["Menchel"]

Lourie reported to Menchel that Epstein's attorneys wanted him to 'tell them the statutes'.

Email
2007-05-10
Communication Source

Villafaña's Prosecution Memorandum

From: Lourie
To: ["Andrew Oosterbaan"]

With Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafaña's prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan for assessment of legal issues.

Memorandum submission
2007-05-10
Communication Source

Indictment Strategy

From: Lourie
To: Villafaña

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.

Email
2007-05-10
Communication Source

Fwd: Review of Prosecution Memorandum

From: Lourie
To: ["Menchel", "Villafaña"]

Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's analysis email to Menchel and Villafaña.

Email forward
2007-05-10
Communication Source

Charging Delays

From: FBI Squad Supervisor
To: Lourie

FBI supervisor explained charges would not be quickly approved; Lourie reported to Menchel that FBI was 'not happy'.

Meeting
2007-05-09
Communication Source

Internal Strategy Meeting

From: Villafaña and West Pal...
To: Lourie

Prosecutors expressed concern about meeting defense counsel; Lourie dismissed views and called for 'strategic thinking'.

Meeting
2007-02-01
Communication Source

Case updates from Villafaña

From: Lourie
To: ["Sloman"]

Lourie asked Sloman if he and Acosta wanted Villafaña to continue updating them directly on the case.

Email
2006-08-25
Communication Source

Updates

From: Lourie
To: Sloman

Asking if Sloman and Alex [Acosta] want Villafaña updating them on the case.

Email
2006-08-23
Communication Source

Operation Leap Year

From: Sloman
To: Lourie

Noting that Operation Leap Year was 'a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy.'

Email
2006-07-24
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search