USAO
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
FBI
|
Collaboration |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Subject of investigation by |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
BOP
|
Professional strained |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Professional collaborative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Did not obtain vns information from |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
State Attorney's Office
|
Inter agency communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Collaborative procedural |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's defense team
|
Adversarial negotiating |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Official employer |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Joint investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subject of investigation negotiation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA's supervisors
|
Organization supervisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Collaborative investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
FBI Team
|
Professional collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OCME
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Interagency cooperation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Negotiating party |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Failed to communicate mislead |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department
|
Recused |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Provided notification to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's attorneys
|
Adversarial negotiating parties |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Inter agency communication coordination |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein matter
|
Did not file charging document |
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 | 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-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-00021194.jpg
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.
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-00021189.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a report, likely from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), concerning the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the report's structure, which covers the factual background, the roles of various federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies (including the DOJ, FBI, and Palm Beach Police), the controversial non-prosecution agreement (NPA), and the timeline of the initial investigation from 2005-2006.
DOJ-OGR-00021188.jpg
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).
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-00021186.jpg
This document contains findings from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding Alexander Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. While OPR did not find evidence of corruption or professional misconduct regarding the decision to enter a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), it concluded that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' and relied on a flawed application of federalism principles. Additionally, the report concludes that attorneys did not commit misconduct regarding the lack of victim consultation, citing the interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00021184.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in court in 2021 and 2023). It outlines the scope of an investigation into DOJ attorneys regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on two issues: the negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the alleged failure to comply with the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Footnotes reveal that in December 2010, allegations were raised that Epstein exerted improper influence over the investigation and that the USAO deceived victims about the existence of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021183.jpg
This document is a page from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning its investigation into the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys in the Epstein case. The OPR outlines the scope and limitations of its investigation, noting it lacks jurisdiction over state officials and that the significant passage of time (approx. 12 years) affected witness recollections. The report's analysis relied heavily on contemporaneous emails and communications from the 2006-2008 period to evaluate the attorneys' actions based on the information available to them at that time.
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-00021181.jpg
This legal document outlines the events following Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, including the dismissal of his federal indictment in New York and the progression of a Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit in Florida. It details a specific victim's appeal and the government's arguments. The document also describes the initiation of an investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into potential prosecutorial misconduct, prompted by a Miami Herald report and a formal request from Senator Ben Sasse.
DOJ-OGR-00021178.jpg
This document outlines the procedural history of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), detailing his guilty plea to state charges of procuring minors for prostitution and the subsequent sentence of 18 months in jail. It highlights the nine-month delay caused by Epstein's legal team attempting to renegotiate terms with senior DOJ officials, culminating in the Deputy Attorney General's refusal to intervene on June 23, 2008. The text also describes the immediate legal fallout, specifically a July 7, 2008 emergency petition filed by a victim ('Jane Doe') alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act because victims were not consulted about the deal.
DOJ-OGR-00003316.jpg
This document details the conflicting communications and actions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's work release following his June 30, 2008 plea. It reveals that while federal prosecutors (USAO) and Epstein's own attorney indicated he would not get work release, a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official stated he was eligible, and he was ultimately placed in the program without the USAO's knowledge. The document also highlights Epstein's false statements to the court about his employment at the non-existent "Florida Science Foundation."
DOJ-OGR-00003315.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's placement on work release following his guilty plea. It highlights the disconnect between the USAO's expectation of 'continuous confinement' and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's decision to allow work release, as well as the legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz) to secure this privilege. The document establishes that while the USAO threatened to investigate if Epstein received special treatment, State Attorney Krischer confirmed Epstein's technical eligibility for the program.
DOJ-OGR-00003312.jpg
This document details communications from late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It begins with a letter from Roth to Epstein's counsel, Starr and Lefkowitz, confirming that federal prosecution is appropriate, and then shifts to prosecutor Villafaña's efforts to enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña expresses strong suspicion that Epstein's attorneys are misrepresenting the terms of his confinement, telling her he would be in a jail 24/7 while planning for him to be at a less restrictive 'stockade', which she reports to a colleague, Sloman, as a violation of their agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg
This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00003303.jpg
This document details events in early January 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, starting with the postponement of a plea hearing due to issues with the state charge. It describes a meeting where defense attorney Sanchez alleged a media leak by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and pushed for a lenient plea deal, followed by a phone call where Epstein's full legal team reiterated their desire for a 'watered-down resolution'. Amid these negotiations, USAO personnel expressed concern about delays and initiated a full internal review of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003293.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, details the contentious negotiations between federal prosecutors (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in October 2007. It describes the defense's successful request to postpone Epstein's state guilty plea and the prosecution's growing frustration with the defense for revisiting settled issues. The prosecutors also express suspicion that the defense's delay tactics were motivated by a new civil lawsuit filed against Epstein in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
DOJ-OGR-00003283.jpg
This document details discussions among prosecutors regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It covers the rationale behind a broad non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators and focuses on communications from September 21, 2007, between prosecutor Villafaña and State Attorney Krischer, who were finalizing Epstein's sentence and confirming that sexual offender registration was a non-negotiable term.
DOJ-OGR-00003282.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the specific negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights the inclusion of the controversial clause granting immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator,' which AUSA Villafaña added and DOJ official Lourie failed to reject, despite Lourie explicitly rejecting a separate request for an immigration waiver. The document also records Lourie's later admission to OPR that the broad non-prosecution agreement likely stemmed from U.S. Attorney Acosta's reluctance to charge Epstein at all.
DOJ-OGR-00003281.jpg
This document, part of a legal case filed in 2021, details communications and negotiations from September 2007 concerning a potential plea deal for Mr. Epstein. It highlights discussions among various legal professionals regarding charges, sexual offender registration, and the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). A key aspect is the USAO's agreement, as part of a draft NPA, not to criminally charge Epstein's female assistants, employees of his corporate entity, and 'potential co-conspirators' in an ongoing federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003272.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's communications and justifications regarding a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Villafaña explains to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) her strategic decisions, including the structuring of state and federal sentences, the rationale for not prosecuting Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, and the handling of immigration matters concerning Epstein's assistants. The text reveals internal government discussions about the controversial plea agreement and the legal reasoning behind its terms.
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
This legal document details recollections from a meeting on September 12, 2007, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Participants, including prosecutors like Lourie and Villafaña and others like Krischer and Belohlavek, discussed the terms of Epstein's plea, specifically whether he would serve an 18-month sentence in a county jail versus a state prison, and which charges he would plead to. The document highlights disagreements and differing memories among the participants regarding the decisions made and the authority to make them.
DOJ-OGR-00003266.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations in September 2007 between the USAO (represented by Villafaña, Acosta, and others) and Epstein's defense team. It outlines the drafting of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) proposing a 20-month jail sentence (reducible to 17 months with 'gain time') and notes a critical meeting on September 12 involving the State Attorney's Office to discuss state charges. The text also reveals internal USAO strategy, including preparing a revised indictment in case negotiations failed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity