Epstein
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
marshals
|
Custody transport |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
FBI Palm Beach Office
|
Investigator subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MARTY
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted Female Subject]
|
Travel companions |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Wan Kerep
|
Subject of news indictment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Renate Schroeder Dolphin and 64 other women
|
Romantic |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida
|
Requests deferral of prosecution from |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
District Court (S.D. Fla.)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Geoff
|
Subject of discussion |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[four names]
|
Co conspirators |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Party to plea agreement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Abuser exploiter |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Subject of investigation government official involved in case |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Involved in case related to |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Provision regarding USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers and the safeguarding of these co... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's alleged sexual molestation of minor girls on a daily basis for many years, including at... | West Palm Beach mansion | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion about Ghislaine Maxwell's relationship with Epstein continuing and her responsibilitie... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Litigation involving Epstein where his lawyers attacked the credibility of the girls. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discovery process blocked by Epstein and co-conspirators, leading to the need for alternative inv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ghislaine Maxwell began looking for real estate for her dad and Epstein asked for help finding an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein asked Ghislaine Maxwell to continue helping him (find a house, etc.) after her father's d... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's alleged criminal scheme and the defense's efforts to secure non-prosecution and immigra... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement provisions precluding criminal charges and immigration proceedings against certain indi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's plea agreement and sentencing for an 18-month incarceration, reduced from a 'non-negoti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Plaintiffs' motion to deny a protective order, which seeks to exclude Epstein from depositions, i... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Minor girl (Jane Doe #5) was taken to Epstein's mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and/or sex ... | Epstein's mansion on El Bri... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein serving 12 months of house arrest at his Palm Beach home, with curfew, no unsupervised co... | Palm Beach home | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's findings and application of sentencing guidelines, including a four-level leader... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | 11-month investigation by Palm Beach police into Epstein paying underage girls for massages and s... | El Brillo Way home | View |
| N/A | N/A | State Attorney Barry Krischer declined to prosecute Epstein on unlawful sex acts with minors, ins... | N/A | 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 | Epstein's state plea hearing. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter concerning Epstein's plea deal, incl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's plea deal (non-prosecution agreement) for two prostitution charges. | state court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein served 13 months in Palm Beach County jail with work release privileges. | Palm Beach County jail | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI investigation into Epstein's international sex trafficking organization was quashed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Relocation of victims from Palm Beach to other places in the U.S. (including Southern District of... | Palm Beach, other places in... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's attempt to get out of the NPA after it was signed. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021382.jpg
This legal document analyzes decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta that created difficulties in enforcing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the USAO's internal debate on whether to declare a breach of the agreement and highlights a critical change Acosta made to the NPA's language, weakening the requirement for Epstein to enter a guilty plea. The document suggests these decisions made it significantly harder for the USAO to prove Epstein was intentionally failing to comply with the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021380.jpg
This document details an investigation into the origins of a two-year sentence proposal for Jeffrey Epstein, contrasting the differing recollections of prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman with documentary evidence. The record shows no indication that Epstein's team initially proposed the two-year term; in fact, they argued against any federal prosecution just before the offer was made. The document also outlines alternative, harsher sentencing options the U.S. Attorney's Office considered, such as a plea to a federal offense with a much longer sentence or a conspiracy charge, and why those options were ultimately rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021379.jpg
This document is a section of a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR criticizes Acosta's decision to prematurely end the investigation and accept a lenient 18-month sentence, forgoing the pursuit of crucial computer evidence. The report also notes OPR's inability to determine the basis for an earlier two-year sentence proposal, highlighting a lack of clarity and justification in the prosecution's strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021375.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The report concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the case with a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before the investigation was complete was 'poor judgment' and prevented the USAO from obtaining significant evidence, such as surveillance footage from the PBPD and cooperation from potential co-conspirators. The document notes that key investigative steps, like interviewing Epstein's assistants, were not taken before the lenient deal was offered.
DOJ-OGR-00021373.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's concerns about federalism led him to craft a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that paradoxically intruded more on state authority and had negative consequences due to the federal team's unfamiliarity with the state court system. This lack of familiarity, a concern raised by fellow prosecutor Villafaña, resulted in unforeseen outcomes like Epstein obtaining work release, which was contrary to the prosecutors' intent.
DOJ-OGR-00021368.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the conflicting recollections of prosecutors Acosta and Lourie regarding a broad provision not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators,' with Lourie suggesting it could have been a message to victims while Acosta focused on Epstein's punishment. OPR concludes the provision was likely intended to protect Epstein's four assistants and other employees, not victims or his influential associates, and that its inclusion was not carefully considered by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00021367.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's statements to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding a non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña explains her rationale for including the provision, her communications with her supervisor Lourie, and her belief at the time that it would only protect Epstein's four female assistants, not any of his influential associates. The document suggests a lack of substantive discussion among prosecutors about the provision's potential implications.
DOJ-OGR-00021366.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that the controversial provision not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" was not the result of improper favoritism by prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. Instead, the report finds the broad language evolved from a narrower defense request during the exchange of drafts and was included with little internal discussion or analysis within the U.S. Attorney's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
DOJ-OGR-00021364.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing detailing an OPR interview with prosecutor Villafaña about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein NPA negotiations. Villafaña defends her collegial communication style with defense attorney Lefkowitz as a tactic to complete the assigned task, while remaining firm on substantive terms. She also explains her strategic reasoning for agreeing to a plea deal provision that protected Epstein's associates from prosecution, which was to avoid excessive court scrutiny that could jeopardize the entire agreement.
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-00021361.jpg
This legal document details the post-meeting communications and ongoing negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office (represented by Acosta and Sloman) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights a significant dispute over alleged concessions Acosta made during a breakfast meeting, as claimed by Lefkowitz in an October 23, 2007 letter, and a contemporaneous draft response from the USAO refuting those claims.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
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-00021354.jpg
This document is part of a legal filing detailing an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into prosecutor Menchel's handling of the Epstein case. The investigation focuses on whether Menchel's prior dating relationship with defense counsel Sanchez in 2003 created a conflict of interest or improperly influenced a plea deal offered years later. The document outlines Menchel's and his supervisor Acosta's conflicting and corroborating statements regarding the decision-making process for the plea, and concludes it would have been prudent for Menchel to disclose the relationship to his supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00021351.jpg
This legal document discusses the effectiveness of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, in portraying his case as legally complex to prosecutors like Alex Acosta. It also examines whether preexisting relationships between prosecutors (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta) and defense counsel improperly influenced the outcome, concluding, based on an OPR investigation, that they did not. The document highlights how Epstein's wealth funded a formidable defense that successfully negotiated concessions from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021349.jpg
This legal document, part of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes whether Alexander Acosta's actions in the Jeffrey Epstein case were motivated by improper influences. It argues that Acosta's decision to pursue a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA), which included jail time and sex offender registration, was a more stringent outcome than the likely state-level sentence, which prosecutor Menchel described as a mere 'slap on the wrist.' The document uses this and other evidence, including recollections from prosecutors Sloman and Menchel, to suggest Acosta was not acting to improperly benefit Epstein but was navigating complex policy and federalism issues.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021345.jpg
This legal document details the significant reluctance of Jeffrey Epstein's victims to participate in a public trial, primarily due to privacy concerns, fear of public exposure, and emotional distress. Statements from officials Villafaña and Lourie, along with a declaration from an FBI agent, indicate that this victim sentiment was a major factor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in its handling of the case. The document highlights specific instances of victim trauma, such as a teenager's distress when her parents discovered her involvement after the FBI left a business card at their home.
DOJ-OGR-00021340.jpg
This legal document, a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) did not violate department policy by declining to prosecute two of Epstein's foreign national assistants, which would have triggered their deportation. The report also states that the evidence does not establish that prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, were influenced by improper motives like Epstein's wealth when they agreed to terms favorable to him.
DOJ-OGR-00021339.jpg
This legal document is a page from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to approve a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein, which included an 18-month state sentence and a provision not to prosecute unidentified 'potential co-conspirators,' did not violate a clear and unambiguous Department policy and therefore did not constitute professional misconduct. The report distinguishes between 'transactional immunity' and 'use immunity' in its analysis of the agreement's terms.
DOJ-OGR-00021338.jpg
This legal document analyzes the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein in light of the Department of Justice's 'Ashcroft Memo,' which mandates charging the 'most serious readily provable charge.' It contrasts the federal indictment for sex trafficking prepared by prosecutor Villafaña, which carried a 168-210 month sentence, with the eventual plea deal of an 18-month sentence on state charges. The document also reveals internal disagreement, with prosecutors Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceiving risks in the federal case, while Villafaña and the CEOS Chief believed the charges were appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021337.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The OPR concludes that U.S. Attorney Acosta did not violate any clear standards or commit professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation through the NPA, which required Epstein to plead to state charges. The report affirms that Acosta had the authority to make this decision and that the attorneys involved exercised sufficient competence and diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00021336.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzes the decision by former U.S. Attorney Acosta to use a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to resolve the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that Acosta did not commit misconduct, as there was no clear and unambiguous statute or policy in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) that prohibited the use of an NPA in circumstances like Epstein's, where it was not in exchange for cooperation. The document affirms the broad discretion prosecutors hold in making such decisions.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | $0.00 | Epstein paid for a lot in Ghislaine Maxwell's l... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Unspecified recip... | $0.00 | Mention of a 'donation' Epstein had made on a d... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | underprivileged g... | $200.00 | Payment for massages | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | underprivileged g... | $300.00 | Payment for massages | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Defense Attorneys | $0.00 | Cost of Epstein's defense | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | victim | $300.00 | Payment for services (massage) | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Bill Richardson (... | $0.00 | Campaign donations from Epstein that Richardson... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | [REDACTED] | $350.00 | Payment for massage | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Harvard | $30,000,000.00 | Donation for a theoretical physics research cen... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | MD | $200.00 | Payment for providing a massage (first incident). | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | MD | $200.00 | Payment for providing a massage (second incident). | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Jane Doe #5 | $200.00 | Payment for giving a massage. | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | $0.00 | Epstein paid Ghislaine Maxwell millions and mil... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | The Defendant (Gh... | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest included in defendant's assets for dete... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Edwards' clients | $0.00 | Settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agreed t... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest listed as an asset | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Ms. Maxwell | $10,000,000.00 | Bequest from estate | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Interlochen Arts ... | $0.00 | Alleged payment for 'Jane'. The document text s... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | [REDACTED] | $300.00 | Payment for massage services | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Victims (implied) | $0.00 | Reference to 'Epstein's agreement... to provide... | View |
| N/A | Received | Edwards | Epstein | $0.00 | Epstein is attempting to force Edwards to pay '... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Unknown (Construc... | $0.00 | Purchase or construction of a cabin at Interloc... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | Interlochen School | $0.00 | Possible donation of the cabin to the school (w... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | the defendant | $0.00 | Receipt of funds mentioned in context of missin... | View |
| N/A | Paid | Epstein | victims | $0.00 | General reference to victims' right to seek dam... | View |
Arranging a trip
The speaker states that Epstein, not Ghislaine, called Annie's mom to arrange the trip.
Invitation to New Mexico
Epstein called Annie's mom to invite Annie to New Mexico, falsely claiming that 20 to 25 other girls and his wife, Ghislaine, would be there.
Decision not to prosecute
Epstein personally met with Capt. Elmer Gudger and advised him that he no longer wished to prosecute Juan Alessi for burglary and theft.
Contact Information
Before the witness left, Epstein asked her to leave her phone number.
Ongoing communication
The witness, Kate, describes her communications with Epstein during her twenties and early thirties as having a 'friendly' tone. She continued communicating because she did not want to admit what had happened to her and was fearful of disengaging.
Invitation to New Mexico
Epstein called Annie's mom to invite Annie to New Mexico, falsely claiming that 20 to 25 other girls and his wife, Ghislaine, would be there.
Unwanted touching
During the second massage, JS told Epstein she didn't want to be touched after he attempted to touch her breasts.
Complaint
Epstein filed a complaint which Edwards alleges was done without probable cause for the purpose of extortion.
General conversation
The witness, A. Farmer, testified that she spoke with Epstein by phone approximately two or three times after her trip to New York.
No Subject
A shipment from Epstein’s address in New York to Minor Victim-4, reflected in Federal Express records.
No Subject
A photograph was sent to Epstein with a note saying 'Thanks for rocking my world'.
Unknown
Epstein was on the phone at the beginning of the massage session with ML.
Future contact for work
Epstein told ML to leave her telephone number with his assistant so she could be contacted for work again.
No Subject
Accusers offered to send photos to Epstein while he was in jail.
Instruction to write down contact information
After the alleged assault, Epstein told Jane Doe to write down her name and phone number.
No Subject
Message pads entered at trial show Carolyn called Epstein several times in the summer of 2004: once in late April or early May, again on July 6, and again on July 30.
No Subject
Message pads entered at trial show Carolyn called Epstein several times in the summer of 2004: once in late April or early May, again on July 6, and again on July 30.
Presence at New Mexico residence
Epstein consistently notified Detective Deborah Anaya, a New Mexico official, whenever he spent time at his residence in New Mexico.
No Subject
A shipment from Epstein’s address in New York to Minor Victim-4, reflected in Federal Express records.
Ghislaine being there
Epstein called Annie's mom and talked to her about Ghislaine being present for a trip.
Job offer
Epstein called Maria and offered her a job at his mansion in New York City.
Maria's artistic career
Burt Fields or Eileen Guggenheim spoke to Epstein about Maria to help advance her artistic career.
Future contact
If a girl had not been to his home before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact her in the future.
Recruiting other girls
Epstein encouraged girls to find other girls interested in performing massages for him.
Unspecified
A conversation between Epstein and the witness's mother is mentioned by Ms. Menninger as something that could be testified to by the mother herself.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity