Fair. 14 Q -- of July. Okay. So, on that 31st, it was 15 , Jerry Lefcourt, Sanchez, and the purpose of 16 the meeting with Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and as 17 well as the case agents was to present the plea offer. And 18 did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? 19 A I don't recall

Fair. 14 Q -- of July. Okay. So, on that 31st, it was 15 , Jerry Lefcourt, Sanchez, and the purpose of 16 the meeting with Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and as 17 well as the case agents was to present the plea offer. And 18 did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? 19 A I don't recall

Fair. 14 Q -- of July. Okay. So, on that 31st, it was 15 , Jerry Lefcourt, Sanchez, and the purpose of 16 the meeting with Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and as 17 well as the case agents was to present the plea offer. And 18 did you get briefed on how that plea offer went? 19 A I don't recall

ur letter now accuses me of “manufacturing” charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would “embarrass the Office,” he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein’s desired p

it wasn’t any.justice served.” Appendix at 2 (Recarey Depo. 496:1-2). 26. Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Andrew Lourie, in a transmittal letter with the prosecution memo of Assistant U.S'. Attorney Ann Marie Villafana, told Criminal Chief Matthew Menchel: “The state i

tember 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. Villafana. 22. Ms. Villafana replied that she had “forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don’t anticipate it going any further than that.” Jd. 23. Ms. Villafana stated that the agreement would be “placed in the

ion ............................................20 5. October 2006 – February 2007: Epstein’s Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting ....................................................................................22 6. February 2007:

k Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege P-014026 thru P-014027 7/16/2007 email from Marie Villafafia to Matt Menchel and Andrew Lourie regarding correspondence from Roy Black and Motion to Quash 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative Privilege P-014028 thru P-014

disenfranchise and silence the victims. It is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go b