FBI
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CIA
|
Intelligence sharing |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Trent Martin
|
Law enforcement subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Flatley
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Cooperative data sharing |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Operational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Source
|
Informant service provider |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
Person of interest interviewee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Scott
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Official |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert Maheu
|
Informant operative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
U.S.
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Wild
|
Investigative law enforcement victim witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
paul krassner
|
Surveillance target |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The victims
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Jurisdictional investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
James A. Baker
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie
|
Investigator witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
[REDACTED]
|
Professional collaboration |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
NSA
|
Inter agency communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
STEPHEN FLATLEY
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pro-PRC organizations
|
Surveillance adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Requester agency |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | OPR working with FBI Palm Beach Office, including case agents and Victim Witness Specialist, to o... | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI search of Automated Case Support system and documentation of victim notification system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Meeting | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Notification received by OPR from FBI and USAO regarding federal investigation and Epstein's plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI investigation into Epstein's international sex trafficking organization was quashed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation began, contemporaneous with news reports of Epstein's arrest. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims provided OPR with information regarding their contacts with the FBI and USAO. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rothstein's firm was raided. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI produced a criminal complaint related to Alfredo Rodriguez. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell ('green lighting ab arrest'). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Launch of counterintelligence investigation into Trump campaign | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel review of nude images | FBI | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI interview of a victim pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation o... | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Epstein investigation | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transfer of evidence | New York Office (NYO) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Investigation / Agency Interviews | MCC New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search of Epstein's island | Little St. James | View |
| N/A | N/A | Seizure of images from Jeffrey Epstein's residences pursuant to search warrants. | New York and Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned Arrest upon return to US | Unspecified Airport | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closure of federal investigations by FBI and U.S. Attorney | Federal jurisdiction | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Raid / Evidence Collection | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of new victims | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government interviews with accusers | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening of the case/Investigation | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Referral of case to FBI | Palm Beach | View |
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-00021242.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that quotes a lengthy email from an individual named Menchel to a recipient identified in a footnote as Sloman. In the email, Menchel severely criticizes Sloman for acting without authorization in the investigation of Mr. Epstein, specifically for preparing an indictment memo and misleading agents. Menchel also clarifies that his own conversation with Lilly Sanchez about the case was an informal exploratory discussion, not a formal plea offer, and was conducted with the full knowledge of the US Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021241.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a report (likely by the OPR) detailing internal conflicts within the prosecution team regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It features a contentious email from prosecutor Villafaña to supervisor Menchel, accusing him of undermining the case, violating the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights, and showing weakness by offering a plea with no federal conviction. The text also includes Menchel's justification to OPR, stating that while he understood Villafaña's anxiety to file charges, her tone was disrespectful to U.S. Attorney Acosta, who sought a more 'dispassionate' approach.
DOJ-OGR-00021240.jpg
This legal document details a disagreement between prosecutors Menchel and Villafaña in July 2007 regarding a proposed state plea deal to resolve a federal investigation into Epstein. Menchel, asserting the decision was ultimately made by Alex Acosta, defended the state plea, while Villafaña argued it was contrary to Department of Justice policy, did not reflect the gravity of the offense, and went against the wishes of victims she had consulted.
DOJ-OGR-00021228.jpg
This document, likely an OPR report, details internal DOJ discussions from May 2007 regarding the prosecution strategy for Jeffrey Epstein. It reveals Prosecutor Lourie's preference for a pre-indictment plea deal to avoid the risk of a judge rejecting the deal after seeing the full scope of Epstein's crimes in an indictment. The document includes an email from Lourie to Marie Villafaña suggesting a strategic indictment using only 'unknown' victims to scare the defense, while holding back victims with potential impeachment issues (referenced as 'myspace pages') for a later superseding indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021227.jpg
This document details internal discussions within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami during May-June 2007 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes how prosecutor Villafaña submitted a memorandum seeking to file charges by May 15, but her managers, including Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, paused the process to conduct a more thorough review, including seeking analysis from the DOJ's CEOS section. The document highlights the tension between the desire to move quickly on the indictment, as pushed by the FBI, and the managers' more cautious approach, which ultimately delayed the charges.
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-00021225.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations regarding the federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. It describes AUSA Villafaña's 82-page prosecution memorandum dated May 1, 2007, which recommended a 60-count indictment, and the subsequent strategic disagreement by supervisor Lourie, who preferred a narrower strategy focusing on victims with fewer credibility issues. The text also highlights the unusual involvement of the Miami 'front office' in approval decisions typically handled by the West Palm Beach office.
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-00021221.jpg
This legal document details the early stages of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in July and August 2006. It highlights the internal communication dynamics, showing investigator Villafaña bypassing her immediate supervisor to report directly to a senior management team in Miami, including Sloman and Acosta. The document also reveals the FBI's distrust of the local State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein, and describes the initial evidence-gathering efforts, which included flight manifests and victim interviews.
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-00021217.jpg
This legal document details a May 2006 meeting where the lead Palm Beach Police Department detective presented the state's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to FBI and USAO representatives. The detective expressed concerns that pressure from Epstein's attorneys was compromising the state case and that Epstein may have been tipped off about a search warrant. The group discussed potential federal charges based on Epstein's use of a private plane for interstate travel with suspected underage girls, though evidence was not yet firm.
DOJ-OGR-00021212.jpg
This document provides a timeline of key events in the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008. It details the opening of the investigation, meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's counsel, the decision to offer a state-based resolution, and the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline concludes with Epstein's guilty plea in state court, a subsequent legal challenge by a victim (Jane Doe), and the start of Epstein's work release program.
DOJ-OGR-00021206.jpg
This document details the involvement of Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Marie C. Villafaña in the federal investigation of Epstein, which she took over in 2006. It outlines her role in all aspects of the investigation, including negotiating and signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) under the direction of superiors like Acosta. The text also covers her subsequent role as co-counsel for the USAO in the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) litigation brought by Epstein's victims, a role she held until the office was recused in February 2019, shortly before she left the USAO in August 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021198.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of an analysis concerning the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), detailing a timeline of events from 2007-2011 involving victim notifications by the FBI and USAO, subsequent litigation, and an examination of whether officials violated standards by entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without consulting victims. The document focuses on statutory provisions, department policies, and professional conduct rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021197.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, outlining a timeline of events from September 2007 to June 2008 related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It details the actions of the USAO, FBI, defense attorneys, and individuals like Acosta and Villafaña concerning a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), victim notification procedures, and Epstein's eventual state guilty plea on June 30, 2008. The document highlights the complex legal maneuvering and ongoing investigative efforts by both the prosecution and defense during this critical period.
DOJ-OGR-00021196.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a chapter of a legal or investigative report concerning the U.S. Government's handling of the Epstein investigation. It outlines the timeline and topics related to the government's interactions and communications with victims between 2005 and 2008, focusing on the roles of the USAO and FBI. Key events include the interpretation of victim rights laws (CVRA), the process of victim notification, and internal discussions among officials like Villafaña, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about consulting victims before and after a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021191.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, detailing the timeline of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case from July to September 2007. It outlines key events, including meetings between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), the FBI, and Epstein's defense team, and chronicles the evolution of the plea agreement terms, such as the reduction of the proposed incarceration period. The document highlights the roles of specific attorneys, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie, in the negotiation process.
DOJ-OGR-00021187.jpg
This document is an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically its communication with victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, there were significant failures, including misleading letters sent by the FBI and poor judgment by State Attorney Acosta in not ensuring victims were notified of a plea hearing. These actions, combined with a lack of transparency, led to victims feeling ignored and frustrated, created a misimpression of collusion with Epstein's counsel, and ultimately damaged public confidence in the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021182.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing the scope and methodology of its investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Following a court ruling on February 21, 2019, that found the USAO violated victims' rights, OPR's investigation involved reviewing extensive records, conducting over 60 interviews, and identifying former U.S. Attorney Acosta and four other individuals as subjects of the inquiry for their roles in the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00021143.jpg
This legal document argues for vacating Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four due to a variance between trial proof and indictment allegations. It notes that Jane initially denied sexual abuse in New Mexico to the FBI but later claimed sexual activity with Epstein at a ranch, which was not included in the Mann Act counts. The document concludes that a new trial is necessary for these counts.
DOJ-OGR-00019572.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues for the continued sealing of certain court documents, with redactions, to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial from pretrial publicity. The filing references the government's own public statements about its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associates as evidence of the high-profile nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019493.jpg
This page from a legal filing dated July 21, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that government officials (Ms. Strauss and FBI Agent William Sweeney) and private attorneys (David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, and Bradley Edwards) made prohibited, prejudicial public statements regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The document cites specific quotes comparing Maxwell to a 'snake' and 'villain,' as well as speculation about her potential cooperation with prosecutors to implicate other 'wealthy and influential people.' The filing asserts these comments violate Local Rule 23.1.
DOJ-OGR-00019125.jpg
This document is the cover page for a court transcript from the jury trial of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on December 9, 2021. The trial took place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Alison J. Nathan presiding. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00019065.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on a prior interview with prosecutors on February 7, 2020, during which Rodgers allegedly stated he first recalled meeting a person named Jane around the year 2000. When confronted with this previous statement during the cross-examination, Rodgers responds, 'I don't recall.'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity