DOJ-OGR-00003296.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 120 of 348 D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, protracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing to senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein’s guilty plea by months. On October 29, 2007, Villafafia emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted Sloman to address with Lefkowitz. Among other things, Villafafia pointed out that the NPA required Epstein to use his “best efforts” to comply with the agreement, but he had failed to comply with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing postponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz’s attempts to limit the USAO’s communications with various entities and individuals, Villafafia noted that the USAO needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney’s Office and the victims’ attorney “to [e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement.” That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed Sloman that the state judge assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein’s plea and sentence in early January 2008. Belohlavek assured Sloman that the “plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that was agreed on by all for the sentencing.”'”” Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month show that the USAO, the State Attorney’s Office, and defense counsel continued to communicate regarding the date of the guilty plea, with the USAO asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008 date for the entry of Epstein’s guilty plea was “unacceptable,” while the defense contended that Epstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.!°° E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA’s § 2255 Provision Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims With Epstein’s plea hearing delayed, he launched a new effort to undermine the validity of the NPA, this time within the Department. On November 16, 2007, Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr called the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein.'*! At Fisher’s request, Lourie, who in late September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher’s Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could 1? The NPA had required Epstein’s plea and sentencing to occur by October 26, 2007, but provided that Epstein could report to begin serving his sentence on January 4, 2008. 15D State v. Epstein, No. 2006-CF-9454, Notice of Hearing (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Dec. 7, 2007). 11 Ina meeting with Acosta and Sloman on November 21, 2007, Lefkowitz informed them that Starr had placed a call to Fisher. 94 DOJ-OGR- 00003296