Lourie
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | Negotiation | The NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the NPA evolved significantly. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | Eleventh Circuit | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Intense negotiations regarding the NPA. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Meeting | Two Villafaña/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and claims of misconduct by state i... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Personnel transition | Lourie was transitioning to a new job in Washington, D.C. during the negotiation period. | Washington, D.C. | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal case assessment | The USAO considered the importance of victim reluctance and concerns about prevailing at trial in... | N/A | View |
| 0022-09-01 | N/A | Weekend negotiation deadline | Via Phone/Email | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021281.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details internal confusion and justifications regarding the broad immunity given to co-conspirators, with officials claiming they did not realize it would protect high-profile associates. The text also covers negotiations on September 21, 2007, between State Attorney Krischer and federal prosecutor Villafaña regarding Epstein's sexual offender registration and jail time, including a notable email from Krischer stating he was glad the deal was worked out for 'reasons I won't put in writing.'
DOJ-OGR-00021279.jpg
This legal document details plea negotiations in the case against Mr. Epstein on and around September 21, 2007. It reveals intense back-and-forth communication between prosecutors (Acosta, Villafaña, Lourie) and defense attorneys (Lefkowitz, Sanchez) over critical terms, including whether Epstein would have to register as a sex offender and the scope of a non-prosecution agreement for his alleged co-conspirators. The document highlights internal prosecution strategies and their dismissive view of some members of Epstein's legal team.
DOJ-OGR-00021278.jpg
This legal document details a critical point in the plea negotiations for Jeffrey Epstein around September 20, 2007. It shows Epstein's defense team rejecting a federal plea agreement to pursue a "state-only" deal, primarily to avoid the federal sexual offender registration requirement. The document captures the internal communications among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta, and State Attorney Barry Krischer, as they react to the defense's shift in strategy and establish a hard deadline for filing charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021277.jpg
This document outlines the internal and external communications of the US Attorney's Office regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea negotiations on September 20, 2007. It details U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta's refusal to sign the plea agreement personally, insisting the trial team sign it, and his refusal to alter standard charging language. The text also highlights a critical dispute where Epstein's defense attempted to change the charge from solicitation of minors (registrable) to forcing adults into prostitution (non-registrable), which the prosecution rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021276.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely OPR) detailing internal communications on September 19, 2007, between prosecutors Villafaña, Lourie, and U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz. While Villafaña and Lourie strongly recommended ending negotiations due to what they perceived as the defense's "bad faith" tactics of re-inserting rejected provisions, Acosta instructed them to continue trying to "work it out" rather than indict immediately. The page ends mid-sentence with Villafaña expressing concern about "caving" to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021275.jpg
This document details the plea agreement negotiations in the Epstein case on September 19, 2007. It outlines the communications between prosecutor Villafaña and defense counsel Lefkowitz, including Villafaña's push to finalize a deal and Lefkowitz's submission of a 'redline' draft with specific terms. The document also reveals the involvement of Villafaña's colleague, Lourie, who reviewed the draft agreement and questioned certain provisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021273.jpg
This legal document details a critical point in plea negotiations for Mr. Epstein. After prosecutor Lourie believed he had reached an agreement with defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz submitted a revised proposal with substantially different terms, including a shorter sentence and protections for Epstein's assistants. This new proposal caused frustration among the prosecutors and was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021272.jpg
This legal document from a court filing details plea negotiations concerning Jeffrey Epstein on September 18, 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña rejected a proposal from Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, for a 12-month sentence, insisting the U.S. Attorney required at least 18 months. The document includes a detailed email from Villafaña to her colleagues outlining the stalled negotiations and subsequent discussions with Lefkowitz about an alternative plea structure involving two separate charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021270.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the plea negotiations between prosecutor Villafaña and Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz. It outlines the strategy to structure state and federal sentencing to manipulate jurisdiction for prison purposes without alerting the judge. It also explains Villafaña's justification for the non-prosecution agreement covering co-conspirators, stating that the USAO viewed Epstein as the priority and wished to avoid highlighting uncharged conduct to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00021269.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the 2007 plea negotiations between the US Attorney's Office (Villafaña, Sloman) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz). It highlights a specific email from Villafaña suggesting a Miami venue to minimize press coverage, which was later scrutinized during CVRA litigation. Crucially, it details the defense's counter-proposal to include immunity for four female assistants who facilitated Epstein's crimes, protection from immigration proceedings for two of them, and the withdrawal of legal processes seeking Epstein's computers.
DOJ-OGR-00021268.jpg
This legal document details plea negotiations in September 2007 between prosecutor Villafaña and Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz. It outlines the development of a 'hybrid' plea agreement involving federal and state charges, a proposed 18-month sentence, and a victim's fund. The document also reveals significant internal dissent among Villafaña's colleagues, particularly Lourie and Acosta, who criticized a proposed assault charge as weak and suggested finding an alternative.
DOJ-OGR-00021266.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal confusion and negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in September 2007. It highlights the lack of clarity on why Epstein's sentence was reduced from 24 to 18 months, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña admitting the reduction happened 'somehow' during the 'flip flop' between state and federal charges. The document also documents Acosta's delegation of negotiation authority and communications between the USAO and Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021263.jpg
This document details the intensification of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case during September 2007. It describes the prosecution, led by Acosta and Villafaña, engaging with Epstein's defense counsel, Gerald Lefcourt, over the terms of a plea deal. The focus of the negotiations shifted to the length of imprisonment, with the USAO moving from a two-year minimum to considering an 18-month sentence, while the defense pushed for a sentence involving home confinement.
DOJ-OGR-00021262.jpg
This legal document details events in the Jeffrey Epstein case from 2007, focusing on the circulation of a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) by USAO attorney Villafaña. It describes a key meeting on September 7, 2007, where Epstein's defense attorneys, including Starr, met with prosecutors, including Acosta, to argue against federal charges. Starr specifically appealed to Acosta by highlighting their shared experience as Senate-confirmed officials.
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
This legal document details communications among prosecutors Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. The prosecutors debated strategy concerning defense counsel's efforts to delay litigation and prevent the government from obtaining computer evidence. Ultimately, Acosta decided to meet with the defense, postponing investigative steps and deadlines, believing it was better to keep the matter within the USAO rather than letting it escalate to the main Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021259.jpg
This document details events from August-September 2007 in the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on U.S. Attorney Acosta's decision to meet with Epstein's newly hired, high-profile attorneys, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals internal tensions, with the FBI pushing for federal prosecution, while Acosta strategized with his colleague Sloman to manage the new defense team and prevent them from escalating procedural complaints to Washington D.C. The document also notes Acosta's prior professional relationship with Starr and Lefkowitz from his time at their law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021254.jpg
This legal document describes a meeting on July 31, 2007, between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team to discuss a plea deal. The USAO presented a proposal that included a federal sentencing range of 188 to 235 months, while Epstein's attorneys argued for alternatives like home confinement, citing safety concerns in prison. Prosecutor Villafaña later expressed concerns to the OPR that the defense team could 'manipulate' a state-level sentence and that the USAO would be 'giving up all control.'
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflict and confusion regarding the decision to offer Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal with only a two-year prison term. It highlights Prosecutor Villafaña's shock at the decision, noting she felt it violated sentencing guidelines and that she had not been consulted. The document confirms that U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ultimately made the decision for the two-year term, despite conflicting recollections from supervisors Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie regarding how and when this was communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021247.jpg
This document excerpt details the defense's ongoing efforts in July 2007 to halt a federal investigation into Epstein and prevent the government from obtaining computer equipment, including sending letters to the USAO. Concurrently, CEOS endorsed Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan finding the defense's arguments unpersuasive and offering CEOS's assistance for the prosecution. The document also references a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the removal of computer equipment from Epstein's home.
DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg
This legal document details internal conflict within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of Epstein. It describes prosecutor Villafaña's unsuccessful attempt to meet with her superior, Acosta, a contentious email exchange with her colleague Menchel that was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and her efforts to obtain computer evidence from Epstein's home. The document highlights disagreements on strategy and procedure among the prosecutors handling the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that quotes a lengthy email from an individual named Menchel to a recipient identified in a footnote as Sloman. In the email, Menchel severely criticizes Sloman for acting without authorization in the investigation of Mr. Epstein, specifically for preparing an indictment memo and misleading agents. Menchel also clarifies that his own conversation with Lilly Sanchez about the case was an informal exploratory discussion, not a formal plea offer, and was conducted with the full knowledge of the US Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021237.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflicts and decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in mid-2007. It highlights prosecutor Villafaña's concerns about unauthorized communications between her superiors (Menchel/Lourie) and Epstein's defense team, specifically regarding a state-based plea deal. The text outlines U.S. Attorney Acosta's reasoning for pursuing a state resolution rather than federal charges, citing concerns about victim testimony and legal issues, despite believing the victims' accounts. Footnotes clarify the specifics of the Ashcroft Memo and disputes between Acosta and Sloman regarding who was involved in the decision-making.
DOJ-OGR-00021236.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the decision to resolve a federal investigation against Epstein with a state plea deal. It details the rationale behind the decision, citing concerns about the case's viability and state jurisdiction, and specifically recounts communications from June and July 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and Epstein's defense team regarding the proposed state resolution.
Initial prosecution memorandum
Forwarding memo and making Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence.
Acosta's involvement
it was "unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail."
NPA Language
Alerted Lourie about 'promises not to prosecute other people' clause; later added defense persistence on immigration waiver.
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'.
Follow up on Pros Memo
Asking for general opinion on the case; highlighting legal hurdles regarding travel purpose and victim age.
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.
Unknown
Emails showing advocacy for prosecution of Epstein.
Case recollection
Stated everyone had concerns about long-term viability of prosecution.
Response to Immigration Waiver
'No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.'
Request for a phone call
Villafaña sent a reply email asking Lourie to call her.
Defense preference for state-only agreement
Lourie emailed Acosta to inform him that Epstein's defense wanted to avoid the sexual offender registration requirement.
Prosecution Memorandum Transmittal
Discussing Marie's 50-page memo, Epstein's wealth and attorneys, the state's failure, and FBI timeline.
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.
FBI's plan to arrest Epstein
Lourie reported to Menchel that the FBI had wanted to arrest Epstein in the Virgin Islands.
Charging Epstein
An earlier email where Lourie suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow for more flexibility in plea negotiations.
Re: Draft NPA with non-prosecution provision
Lourie sent a reply email to Villafaña, though the content mentioned here relates to another issue in the draft.
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'.
Key issues in Villafaña's proposed charges
Lourie sent an 'early email' to Menchel noting two key issues: proving Epstein traveled for sex acts and that some victims told Epstein they were 18.
Risk assessment of proposed statutes
Lourie opined to Acosta and Menchel that there was 'some risk' with the proposed statutes as it was 'uncharted territory'.
Closing the Epstein deal
The manager emailed Lourie suggesting he "talk to Epstein and close the deal."
Non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators
Lourie told OPR the provision was 'unusual' and posited it might have been a message to victims who were also recruiters that they would not be charged.
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.
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.
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.
No Subject
Lourie's emails showed he advocated for Epstein's prosecution.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity