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-00000182.tif
This document excerpt details ongoing plea agreement negotiations on September 19, 2007, between Villafaña and Lefkowitz, with Villafaña setting a firm deadline for conclusion. It also describes Lourie's review of a plea agreement draft and his concerns regarding provisions for suspending investigation and legal process by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00023203.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for Epstein's prosecution and victims' interests, despite a public narrative suggesting collusion with defense counsel. The report details Villafaña's efforts to protect victims' anonymity, expand the case scope, and draft victim notification letters, while refuting claims that she was 'soft on Epstein' based on witness statements and email context.
DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif
This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023189.tif
This document discusses the legal defense strategies employed by Jeffrey Epstein's extensive team of attorneys, highlighting their ability to secure concessions despite initial USAO requirements. It details how prominent lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr influenced prosecutor Alex Acosta, and addresses assertions from individuals like Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie that their relationships with Epstein's counsel did not affect their actions, while noting the significant financial investment in Epstein's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00023184.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report detailing witness challenges and concerns surrounding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It includes recollections from individuals like Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta regarding the viability of a federal prosecution, victim reluctance to testify, evidentiary hurdles, and the eventual negotiated result that led to Epstein serving time and registering as a sexual offender.
DOJ-OGR-00023180.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, discusses OPR's investigation into whether Epstein's status, wealth, or associations improperly influenced the outcome of his case. It concludes that OPR found no evidence of such influence, despite news reports in 2006 identifying Epstein as wealthy and connected to prominent figures like William Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. The report notes that FBI personnel initially unfamiliar with Epstein later became aware of his connections, including those who had been on his plane, and that his legal team's mention of Clinton in pre-NPA letters was contextual.
DOJ-OGR-00023175.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details OPR's findings that Acosta's decision to approve a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, resulting in an 18-month sentence, did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards or constitute professional misconduct, despite OPR criticizing certain decisions made during the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif
This document, an excerpt from an analysis report (Chapter Two, Part Three), discusses the public and media scrutiny following the Miami Herald's November 2018 report on the handling of the Epstein investigation. It focuses on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), allegations of a 'sweetheart deal' by Acosta and the USAO due to improper influences, and OPR's investigation into these matters, concluding that Acosta reviewed and approved the NPA terms and is accountable for it. The report also mentions other individuals (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña) involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023137.tif
This document details interactions between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the USAO in late 2007, focusing on submissions, a key meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, and the defense's threat to pursue a Department of Justice review. The discussions revolved around defense complaints, a proposed revised indictment, and a new argument by Epstein's attorneys regarding the applicability of the state charge he agreed to plead guilty to. The document also highlights the USAO's internal review processes and Acosta's communication with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023129.tif
This document details negotiations and communications surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum in late 2007. It highlights disagreements and strategies among prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, Lourie) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz), including the postponement of Epstein's plea and concerns about Epstein's alleged attempts to discredit victims and influence the legal process. The text also includes Acosta's perspective on not dictating to the state attorney's office.
DOJ-OGR-00023124.tif
This document details aspects of an agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, including his guilty plea timeline, immunity for co-conspirators, and conditions for federal investigation suspension. It also mentions a concern expressed via email by Lefkowitz to Lourie about media leaks prejudicing Epstein and a New York Post report on Epstein's plea deal from October 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00023122.tif
This document details the finalization and signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. It highlights the edits made by Acosta, including changes to Epstein's plea and sentencing requirements, and communications between various parties like Villafaña, Lourie, and Lefkowitz regarding the agreement's language and confidentiality. The document also notes the USAO's duty to redact protected information before disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00023120.tif
This document details communications and events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal and sex offender registration in September 2007. It highlights objections from Sanchez and Lefkowitz to the registration requirement, citing a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting where prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek initially stated the offense was not registrable. The document shows efforts by Epstein's defense to avoid registration and secure an 18-month federal camp sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00023118.tif
This document details negotiations and internal communications surrounding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein, focusing on the involvement of Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie. Key points include Villafaña's revised NPA which proposed a 30-month sentence for Epstein and included non-prosecution for co-conspirators, and a dispute with Lourie over the inclusion of an immigration waiver for Epstein's foreign national assistants. The document also touches on the USAO's general stance on immigration issues and the reluctance to charge Epstein's accomplices.
DOJ-OGR-00023116.tif
This document excerpt details the breakdown of negotiations for a federal plea agreement for Epstein by September 20, 2007, shifting focus to a state-only resolution to which the defense wanted to avoid sexual offender registration. It describes communications between Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Lourie, and Krischer regarding proposed plea terms, sentencing, and deadlines, highlighting Villafaña's firm stance against further delays and Epstein's apparent goal to avoid sexual offender registration.
DOJ-OGR-00023115.tif
This document details ongoing negotiations and disagreements surrounding a federal plea agreement for Mr. Epstein in September 2007. It highlights the involvement of Assistant State Attorney Villafaña, who communicated with Belohlavek and sent revised agreements to Lefkowitz, and Acosta, who provided feedback on the USAO's 'hybrid' plea agreement to Lourie, emphasizing the trial team's support is crucial. A key point of contention was the change in offense description from solicitation of minors to forcing adults into prostitution, which made the agreement unacceptable to Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00023111.tif
This document details the ongoing plea negotiations for Mr. Epstein, highlighting his reluctance for jail time and the communication between prosecutors Lourie and Villafaña, and defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals a disagreement over the terms of the plea agreement, with the defense proposing significant changes that were rejected by the USAO, including a prohibition on immigration proceedings against Epstein's female assistants. The document also includes a manager's view that direct conversation with Epstein might be necessary to finalize the deal.
DOJ-OGR-00023094.tif
This document details changes made by Menchel to a draft letter by Villafaña regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal, focusing on the shift from a federal plea to a state imprisonment term. It highlights the involvement of several individuals including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie in discussions and decisions surrounding the Rule 11(c) plea, with an email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, suggesting Acosta's ultimate decision to nix the federal plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif
This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.
DOJ-OGR-00023245.tif
This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023237.tif
This document details Villafaña's process for victim notification in an unspecified case, where she created her own letters and directed FBI agents to deliver them, believing it provided more assistance than legally required. It highlights that these letters were not reviewed by supervisors and that the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no direct contact with victims in the Epstein matter, despite Villafaña's claim of having shown the letter to a specialist who approved it. The document also touches upon the USAO's lack of standardized victim notification procedures and the context of Epstein-related CVRA litigation in July 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif
This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.
DOJ-OGR-00023217.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. It criticizes Acosta's decision-making regarding Epstein's plea agreement, which resulted in a reduced sentence of 13 months served, and his failure to pursue computer evidence. OPR concluded that Acosta had a greater obligation to understand the implications of his actions in resolving the federal investigation.
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