DOJ-OGR-00004420.jpg

[S]ince the signing of the September 24th agreement, more than two months[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with that result. [You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr, former United States Attorney Lewis, Ms. Sanchez and Messrs. Black, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. The defense team, however, after extensive negotiation, chose to adopt the Agreement. Since then counsel have objected to several steps taken by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to effectuate the terms of the Agreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions of the Agreement. It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to enter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes that it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the Agreement. Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 123 of 349 In a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafafia’s and Sloman’s input, Acosta responded to the substance of Starr’s November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter, but she conjectured that “probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the Criminal Division wasn’t] going to respon d 99153 In his seven-page letter, sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote: The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein’s desire to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided .. . Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal interests: (1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a “registerable” offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not harm the interests of his victims. Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO’s intent was “‘to place the identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.” Acosta documented the USAO’s understanding of the operation of the NPA’s § 2255 153 raised with the USAO, and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance. 96 The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr’s letter raised issues that had not been previously DOJ-OGR-00004420