| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Business associate |
26
Very Strong
|
25 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Business associate |
13
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Business associate |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Jack Goldberger
|
Client |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Abuser victim |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Friend |
11
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Co conspirators |
11
Very Strong
|
56 | |
|
person
Juan Alessi
|
Employee |
11
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Co conspirator |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Prosecutor defendant |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Lefcourt
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Friend |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Abuser victim |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Co conspirators |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
location
Palm Beach residence
|
Ownership |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
USAO-SDFL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 |
| 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 |
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
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.
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'.
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta justifies the decision not to pursue a more aggressive federal prosecution by citing the Petite policy, which presumes deference to state prosecutions, and arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice." He also expresses concerns that a federal trial would have set unfavorable legal precedent regarding solicitation versus trafficking and would have been traumatic for the victims.
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the decision to resolve a federal investigation against Epstein with a state plea deal. It details the rationale behind the decision, citing concerns about the case's viability and state jurisdiction, and specifically recounts communications from June and July 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and Epstein's defense team regarding the proposed state resolution.
This legal document details internal discussions and a key meeting related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It describes a June 26, 2007, meeting where Epstein's attorneys, led by Dershowitz, argued for the case to be handled by the state, an argument the USAO team found unpersuasive. Despite internal concerns about the strength of certain aspects of the case, the USAO team left the meeting intending to proceed, but the document concludes by noting that in July 2007, Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state plea deal to resolve the federal investigation.
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.
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing internal DOJ deliberations in May 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights a conflict between prosecutors Lourie (who favored meeting with defense) and Villafaña (who strongly opposed it, arguing the case warranted prison time rather than probation negotiations). The text includes details of emails and a draft memo where Villafaña expresses concern that meeting with Epstein's lawyers, including Lefcourt and Dershowitz, would reveal too much prosecution strategy.
This legal document details internal disagreements within a U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case, likely against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña pushed for a rapid indictment, citing concerns about ongoing crimes, but her superiors, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, believed she was moving too fast and that more review was necessary. The conflict led to multiple communications seeking direction and was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
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.
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.
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.
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.
This legal document details the aggressive tactics used by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, including a threat by attorney Alan Dershowitz to 'destroy' witnesses. It also explains the Florida State Attorney's Office's decision to present the case to a grand jury, citing a conflict of interest involving prosecutor Krischer's husband and Epstein's lawyer, Jack Goldberger, as well as the complexities of the case and the victim-witnesses.
This legal document details the early stages of the state's investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, beginning in 2005. It describes the evidence found by the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) at Epstein's home and the subsequent transfer of the case to the State Attorney's Office, led by Barry Krischer. The document highlights significant disagreements between prosecutors, like Lanna Belohlavek, and the PBPD over the strength of the evidence and the appropriate charges, as well as the defense team's efforts to undermine victim credibility and the plea negotiations that occurred.
This document details allegations and police findings regarding Jeffrey Epstein's conduct, describing how he and his assistants recruited underage girls for massages that often escalated to sexual acts. It outlines the specific patterns of these encounters, the payment structure, the recruitment of other victims by the girls themselves, and the initiation of the PBPD investigation leading to a search warrant in October 2005.
This document details the legal team assembled by Epstein following the opening of a USAO investigation in late 2006. Epstein hired several high-profile attorneys, including former federal prosecutors Guy Lewis and Lilly Ann Sanchez, and later retained Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, who contacted the USAO on his behalf in August 2007. The defense team was further expanded with the addition of attorneys Martin Weinberg and Joe D. Whitley.
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.
This document outlines the professional histories and specific roles of several key figures from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) who were involved in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It details the career paths of Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, and Andrew C. Lourie within the USAO, describing their supervisory responsibilities, participation in meetings with defense counsel, and involvement in negotiating the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text also notes the career transitions of former U.S. Attorney Acosta, including his recusal from the Epstein matter and subsequent roles as Secretary of Labor and university dean.
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.
This document is a table of contents from a legal report, likely by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), concerning the federal investigation of Epstein. The report's findings, as outlined here, conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta and other subjects did not violate any professional standards or policies when they entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. The document also indicates the report found no evidence that the subjects were improperly influenced by corruption or by Epstein's status and wealth.
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines key events in Jeffrey Epstein's legal case from 2008-2009, including his guilty pleas, custodial sentence, and a review of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by Acosta. The document also lists applicable legal standards and policies from sources like the United States Attorneys' Manual and State Bar Rules.
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.
This document is Page 16 (xii) of an OPR report outlining the structure of an investigation into DOJ officials' conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of events from the initial 2005 police complaint through the 2006 federal investigation, the controversial 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and Epstein's 2008 guilty plea and subsequent incarceration ending in 2010. The page establishes that the report will analyze allegations of professional misconduct by five unnamed subjects and review government interactions with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
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.
| 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 |
After the alleged assault, Epstein told Jane Doe to write down her name and phone number.
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.
Questions regarding allegations Epstein contends Edwards 'ginned up' or 'fabricated'.
A shipment from Epstein’s address in New York to Minor Victim-4, reflected in Federal Express records.
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.
Epstein told ML to leave her telephone number with his assistant so she could be contacted for work again.
Discussion regarding Annie's trip to New Mexico
Narrator told Epstein she wasn't coming back because she had fallen in love.
Allegations that Edwards 'should have known' about the Ponzi scheme.
The speaker notes the absence of these records as evidence
A photograph was sent to Epstein with a note saying 'Thanks for rocking my world'.
Complaint styled 'Jane Doe 102 versus Epstein'.
United States will provide notice to Epstein before disclosing agreement under FOIA.
Epstein was on the phone at the beginning of the massage session with ML.
Epstein told Dobbs 'You can bring girls.'
Email communication regarding Eva being in Paris and flying back, suggesting a close relationship with Epstein.
A message from 'Epstein' for Vanessa Grigoriadis of NY Magazine, to be delivered at 5:10 P.M. The message itself is simply 'Epstein'.
Copperfield called Epstein frequently and left messages indicating they socialized together.
Epstein called Carter to say he was having second thoughts about being a public figure.
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.
During the second massage, JS told Epstein she didn't want to be touched after he attempted to touch her breasts.
Notice to be provided if the US receives a FOIA request for this agreement.
Update on rapid Bitcoin price swings
A shipment from Epstein’s address in New York to Minor Victim-4, reflected in Federal Express records.
Epstein consistently notified Detective Deborah Anaya, a New Mexico official, whenever he spent time at his residence in New Mexico.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity