DOJ-OGR-00021192.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page20 of 258 SA-18 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 18 of 348 I. The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA "State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement ....................................................................................................78 J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators".......79 K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender Registration Requirement.....................................................................................................................81 L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause................................................................83 VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS SIGNED ........................................................................................................................................84 VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS ............................................................................................................................87 A. September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum.............................................87 B. October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast ...........................................................................................................................................89 C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum ...............91 D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea............................................................................................94 E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims.......................................................................94 F. Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct...........................................................................98 1. December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation and Villafaña ...........................................................................................................................................98 2. As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel...........................................................................................................................................99 3. The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review of the USAO's Actions................................................................................................................99 4. Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It................................................................100 5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez, Who Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct.......................................................................101 6. Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence ..............................................................................102 IX. FEBRUARY – JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW ................................................................103 A. February – May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division......................104 xvi DOJ-OGR-00021192