Lourie
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Advocate prosecutor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Discussed facts with possibly |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Communicated thoughts received plea agreement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Forwarded email |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Communicated via email discussed npa plea agreement terms |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lewis's law partner
|
Friend |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department in Washington, D.C.
|
Employee |
1
|
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-00023204.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.
DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg
This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021461.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding victim notification prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007. It highlights conflicts where prosecutor Villafaña raised concerns about the legal requirement to consult victims, but was overruled by supervisors Sloman, Menchel, and Acosta, who cited confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) did not apply to pre-charge resolutions. The document also notes Menchel's concern that notifying victims might cause them to exaggerate stories to seek financial damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021407.jpg
This document details communications from September 2007 concerning a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Case Agent Villafaña, prosecutors Acosta and Lourie, and defense attorney Lefkowitz discussed how to handle the NPA's disclosure, with a focus on preventing it from becoming public while navigating legal requirements and informing victims. Villafaña also attempted to coordinate the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims and sought guidance on what information could be shared with them and other agents.
DOJ-OGR-00021405.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an investigative report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing interviews about the failure to notify victims before a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed. It presents conflicting accounts from key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta regarding the USAO's policy on victim consultation under the CVRA for pre-charge resolutions. The text highlights internal disagreement and confusion over the legal obligations to victims, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan disagreeing with the USAO's stance but not finding it to be an abuse of discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021399.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details how prosecutor Villafaña handled victim notification in the Epstein case prior to charges being filed. Villafaña created a custom letter for FBI agents to hand-deliver to victims, outlining their rights under the CVRA, though she claimed this was not intended to formally activate USAO CVRA obligations. The report notes that while Villafaña informed supervisors Lourie and Sloman, the letters were not reviewed by management (including Acosta), who viewed such notifications as routine tasks.
DOJ-OGR-00021385.jpg
This document details the chaotic final stages of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiations in September 2007, highlighting how the absence of key personnel like Menchel, Lourie, and Sloman led to a lack of clear ownership and fragmented decision-making. The text specifically critiques a broad provision in the agreement not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators,' noting it was accepted with little discussion despite internal concerns, which ultimately precluded the USAO from prosecuting others involved in Epstein's criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021384.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the handling of the Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office. It details a significant communication breakdown between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and AUSA Marie Villafaña regarding the signing of Epstein's 2007 plea agreement (NPA), where Villafaña felt forced to sign a deal she opposed while Acosta claimed he intended to give her veto power. It also highlights how senior management (Menchel) blocked Villafaña from meeting directly with Acosta, resulting in final decisions being made without input from the prosecutor most familiar with the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021381.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report critiques the plea negotiations between the USAO (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense. It highlights that the 18-month sentence was a reduction from an initial 'non-negotiable' 2-year offer, a decision for which OPR could find no documented justification or legal basis. The report concludes that Acosta viewed the federal case merely as a 'backstop' to state charges, failing to seek a punishment that matched the severity of Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00021380.jpg
This document details an investigation into the origins of a two-year sentence proposal for Jeffrey Epstein, contrasting the differing recollections of prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman with documentary evidence. The record shows no indication that Epstein's team initially proposed the two-year term; in fact, they argued against any federal prosecution just before the offer was made. The document also outlines alternative, harsher sentencing options the U.S. Attorney's Office considered, such as a plea to a federal offense with a much longer sentence or a conspiracy charge, and why those options were ultimately rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021379.jpg
This document is a section of a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR criticizes Acosta's decision to prematurely end the investigation and accept a lenient 18-month sentence, forgoing the pursuit of crucial computer evidence. The report also notes OPR's inability to determine the basis for an earlier two-year sentence proposal, highlighting a lack of clarity and justification in the prosecution's strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021378.jpg
This page from an OPR report critiques the USAO's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically regarding the failure to seize Epstein's computers. It details how prosecutors Sloman and Villafaña postponed litigation to obtain the computers, and how US Attorney Acosta signed the NPA—which effectively ended the pursuit of this critical evidence—despite likely being aware of the ongoing efforts to obtain it. The report argues the USAO gave away significant leverage and potential evidence of crimes without proper consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021374.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It criticizes the reliance on state procedures for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), noting that the specific state charges selected allowed Epstein to avoid sex offender registration in New Mexico due to age-of-consent laws. It also details that Acosta was aware the Palm Beach Police Department distrusted the State Attorney's Office, yet he proceeded with a plea deal that relied heavily on state authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00021368.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the conflicting recollections of prosecutors Acosta and Lourie regarding a broad provision not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators,' with Lourie suggesting it could have been a message to victims while Acosta focused on Epstein's punishment. OPR concludes the provision was likely intended to protect Epstein's four assistants and other employees, not victims or his influential associates, and that its inclusion was not carefully considered by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00021367.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's statements to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding a non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña explains her rationale for including the provision, her communications with her supervisor Lourie, and her belief at the time that it would only protect Epstein's four female assistants, not any of his influential associates. The document suggests a lack of substantive discussion among prosecutors about the provision's potential implications.
DOJ-OGR-00021366.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that the controversial provision not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" was not the result of improper favoritism by prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. Instead, the report finds the broad language evolved from a narrower defense request during the exchange of drafts and was included with little internal discussion or analysis within the U.S. Attorney's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
DOJ-OGR-00021364.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing detailing an OPR interview with prosecutor Villafaña about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein NPA negotiations. Villafaña defends her collegial communication style with defense attorney Lefkowitz as a tactic to complete the assigned task, while remaining firm on substantive terms. She also explains her strategic reasoning for agreeing to a plea deal provision that protected Epstein's associates from prosecution, which was to avoid excessive court scrutiny that could jeopardize the entire agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
No Subject
Re-sent email adding that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver.
Reply to non-prosecution provision draft
Lourie responded to another issue in a reply email.
NPA Language
Alerted Lourie about 'promises not to prosecute other people' clause; later added defense persistence on immigration waiver.
Thoughts on USAO's 'hybrid' federal plea agreement
Acosta commented that the USAO's proposed 'hybrid' federal plea agreement seemed 'very straightforward' and that they were 'not changing our standard charging language.' He also stated he didn't typically sign plea agreements and that this shouldn't be the first, emphasizing that the USAO should only proceed if the trial team supports it.
Alex's changes to plea agreement
Lourie forwarded an email (presumably with Acosta's thoughts/changes) to Villafaña, stating 'I think Alex's changes are all good ones. Please try to incorporate his suggestions, change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay.'
Acosta's knowledge of the case
Well,... he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt, talking to me to the extent that he did, he would have been looking at the Pros Memo and the guidance from CEOS, he would have been reading the defense attorney's letters, maybe talking to the State Attorney, I don't know, just all these different sources of information he was I'm comfortable that he knew the case, you know, that he was, he was reading everything. Apparently, he, you know, read the Pros Memo, he read all the stuff....
Case recollection
Stated everyone had concerns about long-term viability of prosecution.
Reaction to Epstein NPA
Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was 'not thrilled' about the NPA, describing it as advantageous to the defendant and not helpful to victims.
No Subject
Lourie told OPR his general recollection of concerns about the viability of federal prosecution of Epstein.
No Subject
Lourie's emails showed he advocated for Epstein's prosecution.
Follow up on Pros Memo
Asking if Menchel read the memo, discussing legal 'keys' regarding travel and victim age, and criticizing the State Attorney's Office.
Request for a phone call
Villafaña sent a reply email asking Lourie to call her.
Transmittal of Prosecution Memorandum
Discussing Marie Villafaña's 50-page memo, Epstein's wealth and defense team, the state's mishandling of the grand jury, and strategy for 'clean victims'.
Response to Immigration Waiver
'No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.'
Reaction to Epstein NPA
Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was 'not thrilled' about the NPA, describing it as advantageous to the defendant and not helpful to victims.
Unknown
Emails showing advocacy for prosecution of Epstein.
Prosecution Memorandum Transmittal
Discussing Marie's 50-page memo, Epstein's wealth and attorneys, the state's failure, and FBI timeline.
Follow up on Pros Memo
Asking for general opinion on the case; highlighting legal hurdles regarding travel purpose and victim age.
USAO concerns about Epstein trial
Lourie provided a written response to OPR stating his recollection of concerns within the USAO about the chances of prevailing at trial against Epstein.
Initial prosecution memorandum
Forwarding memo and making Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence.
Closing the Epstein deal
The manager emailed Lourie suggesting he "talk to Epstein and close the deal."
Acosta's involvement
it was "unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail."
Plea agreement reached with Lefkowitz
Lourie replied to the manager, copying Villafaña, reporting that he had spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed to a deal involving two federal obstruction charges with a nonbinding recommendation for 18 months, followed by a plea to state offenses and one year of house arrest.
Meeting with Epstein's defense
Lourie told Menchel he didn't see a downside to a meeting, but that 'Marie is against it.' Menchel responded that it was 'premature'.
No Subject
Response to Villafaña's email regarding immigration waiver: 'No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity