Andrew Lourie
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Alex Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Sloman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigal Mandelker
|
Professional reporting |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alice Fisher
|
Professional reporting |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey H. Sloman
|
Professional supervisor subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional supervisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
William Zloch
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Zloch
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal negotiation | Negotiation of a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) for Epstein. | Southern District of Florida | View |
EFTA00020711.pdf
This document is a 'Second Supplemental Privilege Log' from the case Jane Doe v. United States, listing internal DOJ, FBI, and USAO communications withheld from civil discovery. The log chronicles the timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from late 2006 to August 2008, detailing the internal deliberations regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), plea negotiations, and the drafting of the indictment. It reveals critical details such as internal disagreements over plea terms, Epstein's refusal to plead to anything other than 'assault on the plane,' Jay Lefkowitz's admission that he never intended Epstein to register as a sex offender, and the government's struggles with victim notification and harassment by Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021258.jpg
This document contains a letter dated August 3, 2007, from Matthew Menchel of the U.S. Attorney's Office to Lilly Ann Sanchez, counsel for Mr. Epstein. The letter presents a non-negotiable two-year incarceration plea offer with an August 17 deadline. Accompanying text explains Menchel's rationale for the offer and its firm deadline to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and notes that the letter was sent on Menchel's last day at the USAO, a timing he described as a 'total coincidence'.
DOJ-OGR-00021218.jpg
This document details the initiation of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in May 2006. AUSA Villafaña opened the case, named "Operation Leap Year," due to federal interests and concerns of improper political influence on the state investigation. On July 14, 2006, Villafaña briefed her superiors, U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Criminal Division Chief Jeffrey Sloman, to ensure their support for the high-profile and contentious case.
DOJ-OGR-00021207.jpg
This document is an investigative timeline detailing the roles and responsibilities within the USAO during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from mid-2006 through mid-2009. It outlines key personnel like Alexander Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, and Marie Villafaña, along with their positions. The timeline also highlights significant events including the opening of the federal investigation, the signing of an NPA, Epstein's guilty plea in state court, and his release from incarceration.
DOJ-OGR-00021205.jpg
This document outlines the professional histories and specific roles of several key figures from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) who were involved in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It details the career paths of Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, and Andrew C. Lourie within the USAO, describing their supervisory responsibilities, participation in meetings with defense counsel, and involvement in negotiating the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text also notes the career transitions of former U.S. Attorney Acosta, including his recusal from the Epstein matter and subsequent roles as Secretary of Labor and university dean.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023096.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the final days of plea negotiations between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in August 2007. It includes a transcript of a letter signed by Matthew Menchel (on behalf of U.S. Attorney Acosta) setting a non-negotiable two-year incarceration term and an August 17 deadline. The narrative explains that the deadline was set to allow prosecutor Villafaña time to investigate Epstein's assistants and computers in New York if the deal was rejected, and notes that Menchel sent this letter on his final day at the USAO.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021755.jpg
This document, stemming from a House Oversight collection, appears to be an excerpt from a report or article comparing the U.S. Attorney's Office's strict handling of a defendant named McDaniel with their lenient handling of Jeffrey Epstein. It details how prosecutors Acosta and Villafaña negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein's lawyers (including Jay Lefkowitz) in 2007, suppressing a 53-page federal indictment and keeping victims uninformed to ensure the deal's success. The text highlights the 'Perversion of Justice' investigation which exposed these actions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021746.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a media report or article included in House Oversight materials (Bates stamp 021746). While the caption highlights Alex Acosta's role in the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal, the body text details a parallel or related legal case involving a defendant named McDaniel who preyed on minors. In that case, Judge Zloch criticized prosecutor Villafaña for withholding the defendant's predatory history, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lourie attempted to have the judge's comments struck from the record.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021736.jpg
This document serves as an exhibit in a House Oversight investigation, likely highlighting systemic issues or specific personnel (like Andrew Lourie or Alex Acosta) within the U.S. Attorney's office. While the caption references the Epstein plea deal, the body text details a separate case ('McDaniel') presided over by Judge Zloch, where prosecutors (Villafaña and later Lourie) were criticized for failing to disclose the defendant's predatory history or arguing it was irrelevant. The document illustrates a pattern of prosecutorial conduct regarding sexual abuse cases.
Motion to strike comments
Argued that McDaniel's history was irrelevant because he had not been charged with a crime previously.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity