State Attorney's Office
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Jurisdictional coordination conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Jurisdictional coordination |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
1 CLEARLAKE CENTRE LLC
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Inter agency |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's Office
|
Professional collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States attorney
|
Jurisdictional separation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
USAO (Federal Prosecutors)
|
Conflict jurisdictional dispute |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
PALM BEACH POLICE
|
Professional conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Communicated stopped communicating |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Obligated to discuss with |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Inter agency communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Defendant prosecutor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Investigated involved in case of |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Agreement participant subject to actions |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAFLS
|
Professional jurisdictional |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subject of prosecution by |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Distrust |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Federal Prosecutor (Sender)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
PBPD
|
Adversarial distrust |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Agreement consultation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
federal prosecutors
|
Professional strained |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001-05-01 | N/A | Palm Beach PD asked the state attorney's office to issue an arrest warrant for Jeffrey Epstein | Palm Beach, FL | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021435.jpg
This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021419.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the conflict and confusion regarding victim notification in the Epstein case. It highlights discrepancies between USAO officials (Sloman, Acosta) and DOJ Criminal Division (Mandelker) regarding who decided to defer victim notification to state authorities. It also includes excerpts from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, aggressively arguing that federal victims had no standing in the state case and should not be contacted by the FBI or informed of 'fictitious rights.'
DOJ-OGR-00021418.jpg
This legal document page from April 2021 details events from December 2007 related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), led by Acosta, to defer to the State Attorney's Office on the matter of notifying victims about Epstein's state court proceedings. The text includes a quote from a proposed communication outlining this deference and Acosta's subsequent explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he trusted the state to fulfill its legal obligations to victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications within the USAO and negotiations with Epstein's defense team in December 2007. It highlights the conflict regarding victim notification, with prosecutor Villafaña expressing frustration about a 'Catch 22' situation where she felt unable to notify victims or file federal charges. The text also details draft letters sent to US Attorney Acosta and State Attorney Krischer, and meetings with defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz attempting to limit federal involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021415.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice OPR report detailing the failure to notify Jeffrey Epstein's victims of his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña prepared notification letters on December 7, 2007, but was ordered by her superior, Sloman, to 'Hold the letter' after Sloman received a request from Epstein's defense attorney (Sanchez) to delay notification. The document highlights internal conflict, with an FBI agent and Villafaña expressing concern and disgust over the delay and defense influence.
DOJ-OGR-00021362.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing claims made by Lefkowitz about concessions from Acosta regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). OPR examined three claims from Lefkowitz's October 23, 2007 letter and found that evidence did not support them, concluding that Acosta did not agree to interfere with state proceedings or alter the NPA's sentencing provisions. The document cites subsequent communications from USAO representatives Sloman and Villafaña that reinforced the original terms of Epstein's 18-month jail sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021334.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It concludes that attorneys Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct because they acted under the direction and approval of U.S. Attorney Acosta, who held broad discretionary authority. The report specifically notes that OPR found no violation of clear statutes or policies in the negotiation and entry into the NPA, including the controversial provision regarding the non-prosecution of unidentified third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00021314.jpg
This document details the conflict between federal prosecutors (USAO) and local officials regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. It reveals that Epstein and his lawyer, Jack Goldberger, misled the court about Epstein's employment at the 'Florida Science Foundation,' a shell entity created in November 2007 using Goldberger's office address, despite Epstein claiming in court it had existed for 15 years. The Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed Epstein on work release in October 2008 without notifying the USAO, contradicting previous assurances.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021286.jpg
This document outlines the specific terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein, including deadlines for his guilty plea (Oct 2007) and self-reporting (Jan 2008). It explicitly grants immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator' and four assistants, waives Epstein's appeal rights, and notes the parties' intent to keep the agreement private. The document also details a communication from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, expressing concern over media leaks after the New York Post reported on the 18-month plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021277.jpg
This document outlines the internal and external communications of the US Attorney's Office regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea negotiations on September 20, 2007. It details U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta's refusal to sign the plea agreement personally, insisting the trial team sign it, and his refusal to alter standard charging language. The text also highlights a critical dispute where Epstein's defense attempted to change the charge from solicitation of minors (registrable) to forcing adults into prostitution (non-registrable), which the prosecution rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021244.jpg
This document is an internal communication, likely an email from a prosecutor to a supervisor, included in a larger legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The author defends themselves against accusations of jumping the chain of command and expresses severe frustration with 'Alex' (likely a U.S. Attorney) for failing to provide direction on the Epstein indictment for over two months. The author explicitly states they fear the Office is being intimidated by 'high-powered lawyers' and describes a 'glass ceiling' preventing prosecution despite evidence of Epstein's ongoing crimes and the identification of new victims by the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00021239.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility) reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. It details Alexander Acosta's justification for the non-prosecution agreement, citing the difficulty of federal trafficking prosecutions at the time (2006-2007) and a preference for state resolution. The document also discusses the legal strategy regarding Rule 11(c) binding pleas and the interaction between federal and state prosecutors, noting the State Attorney's Office desire for 'political cover'.
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions within a prosecutor's office regarding the Epstein case. It outlines the author's opposition to meeting with the defense, led by Lefcourt, arguing it would undermine the prosecution. The document also reveals significant internal conflict, as prosecutor Villafaña expressed fears to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) about the case's direction and was cautioned by her supervisor about insubordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021226.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications between federal prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel) regarding the initial prosecution memorandum for the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights the prosecutors' concerns about Epstein's high-profile defense team, the belief that state prosecutors intentionally sabotaged the case in the grand jury, and strategic discussions about selecting 'clean' victims to ensure a successful indictment. The document also notes Acosta's lack of recollection regarding reading the specific prosecution memo, citing his reliance on senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00021224.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts and meetings with Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in early 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña disagreed with her supervisor, Lourie, about meeting defense attorneys Sanchez and Lefcourt, arguing it would reveal government strategy without gaining concessions. On February 1, 2007, the defense presented a 25-page letter attacking victim credibility, denying federal jurisdiction, and claiming violations of the Petite policy.
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-00021177.jpg
This executive summary details an investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2007-2008. It outlines the initial investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department, Epstein's indictment, the referral to the FBI, and the subsequent negotiation and signing of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein, which included conditions like pleading guilty to state charges and victim compensation. The OPR investigated whether prosecutors committed misconduct by failing to consult victims or misleading them.
DOJ-OGR-00031671.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 10, 2008, from attorney Aileen Josephs to attorney Guy Lewis concerning his client, Mr. Epstein. Josephs advises Lewis against attacking the victim(s) in the case, citing concern from women in the community, and warns him about the legal realities of a potential libel suit and the lack of a valid defense for statutory rape. The letter was also copied to the State Attorney's Office and the Palm Beach Chief of Police, indicating a formal effort to put her concerns on the record with law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00031669.jpg
This document is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request letter dated August 14, 2006, from attorney Aileen Josephs to Florida State Attorney Barry Krischer. Josephs requests the complete file related to the criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein. A handwritten note on the document, dated November 8, 2007, indicates that over a year had passed and counsel had not received a response to the request.
DOJ-OGR-00031619.jpg
This document is a legal request dated July 15, 2005, from Assistant State Attorney Preston Mighdoll to an unspecified company. The letter requests that the company furnish information for an official felony investigation being conducted by Detective Michelle D. Pagan. The document strictly prohibits the recipient from disclosing the existence of the request, stating it could obstruct the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00031570.jpg
Attorney Stuart S. Mermelstein of Herman & Mermelstein PA sends a letter via facsimile to Lanna Leigh Belohlavek at the State Attorney's Office regarding the case State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein. Mermelstein requests coordination for client depositions, arguing for a single deposition per client to be used in both the civil and criminal cases to protect the victims' emotional well-being. He notes that a deposition is scheduled for April 2, 2008, and urges a prompt response.
DOJ-OGR-00031566.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the law firm Herman & Mermelstein, P, dated March 31, 2008. It certifies that a legal document was served via facsimile and U.S. mail to two attorneys, Jack A. Goldberger and Lanna Leigh Belohlavek, at their respective offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. This serves as a formal record of notification in a legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00031544.jpg
This document is a legal certification and request signed by attorney Jack A. Goldberger on February 7, 2008. It requests the court deny a Motion for Protective Order as moot because the parties (Goldberger and Theodore Leopold) agreed to reschedule Jane Doe No. 1's deposition to February 20, 2008. The document certifies service to attorneys Lanna Belohlavek, Theodore Leopold, and Jeffrey Herman.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity