USAO
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Krischer
|
Cooperation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. VILLAFANA
|
Employee |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Inter agency professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's Victims
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein victims
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Oversight investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
State Attorney's Office
|
Inter agency |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 1
|
Litigation victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
State Attorney's Office
|
Jurisdictional coordination conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Federal Judges in the Southern District of Florida
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Official |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The victims
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
state attorney
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's defense counsel
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
State Attorney's Office
|
Jurisdictional coordination |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
FAA
|
Cooperative limited |
5
|
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 | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | 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 | Negotiations between Epstein's attorneys and the USAO, resulting in reduced prison time and other... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) where Epstein's legal team raised his financia... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Consideration of declaring Epstein in breach of the NPA, which could lead to litigation. | 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 | USAO investigation into Epstein, which ran for more than a year. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Federal investigation of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sloman met with Dershowitz and informed him of USAO's opposition to early termination and transfe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial considerations for Epstein case, including victim trauma and evidentiary challenges | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña notified Black that USAO opposed transfer of supervision to U.S. Virgin Islands. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) after initial 'term sheet' was presented. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) entered into by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern Dis... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Epstein investigation | N/A | View |
| N/A | Agreement signing | Signing of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | N/A | View |
| N/A | Litigation | CVRA litigation | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | Signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Entering into the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz sent a follow-up letter to Acosta, expressing USAO's concern about Epstein intentionall... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal Investigation Resolution | Federal Jurisdiction | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Signing and negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | USAO | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflict and confusion regarding the decision to offer Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal with only a two-year prison term. It highlights Prosecutor Villafaña's shock at the decision, noting she felt it violated sentencing guidelines and that she had not been consulted. The document confirms that U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ultimately made the decision for the two-year term, despite conflicting recollections from supervisors Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie regarding how and when this was communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021247.jpg
This document excerpt details the defense's ongoing efforts in July 2007 to halt a federal investigation into Epstein and prevent the government from obtaining computer equipment, including sending letters to the USAO. Concurrently, CEOS endorsed Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan finding the defense's arguments unpersuasive and offering CEOS's assistance for the prosecution. The document also references a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the removal of computer equipment from Epstein's home.
DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg
This legal document details internal conflict within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of Epstein. It describes prosecutor Villafaña's unsuccessful attempt to meet with her superior, Acosta, a contentious email exchange with her colleague Menchel that was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and her efforts to obtain computer evidence from Epstein's home. The document highlights disagreements on strategy and procedure among the prosecutors handling the case.
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-00021238.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021237.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflicts and decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in mid-2007. It highlights prosecutor Villafaña's concerns about unauthorized communications between her superiors (Menchel/Lourie) and Epstein's defense team, specifically regarding a state-based plea deal. The text outlines U.S. Attorney Acosta's reasoning for pursuing a state resolution rather than federal charges, citing concerns about victim testimony and legal issues, despite believing the victims' accounts. Footnotes clarify the specifics of the Ashcroft Memo and disputes between Acosta and Sloman regarding who was involved in the decision-making.
DOJ-OGR-00021236.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021235.jpg
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.
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-00021231.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
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).
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-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-00021209.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021207.jpg
This document is an investigative timeline detailing the roles and responsibilities within the USAO during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from mid-2006 through mid-2009. It outlines key personnel like Alexander Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, and Marie Villafaña, along with their positions. The timeline also highlights significant events including the opening of the federal investigation, the signing of an NPA, Epstein's guilty plea in state court, and his release from incarceration.
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-00021205.jpg
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity