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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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-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.
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-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.
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