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-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00003257.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in early August 2007. On August 2, Epstein's lawyer, Sanchez, proposed a sentence of home confinement and restitution, arguing a state prison sentence was unacceptable. The following day, the USAO, through a letter drafted by Villafaña, rejected this offer and countered that a two-year term of imprisonment was the minimum acceptable sentence to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003251.jpg
This document details conflicting accounts surrounding a July 26, 2007 meeting concerning a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. While Menchel and Acosta provided vague recollections to the OPR, Villafaña claimed she was left “shocked and stunned” by the abrupt decision to offer a two-year sentence, which she described as “random” and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines. The document establishes that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer the two-year term of imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg
This document details the internal decision-making process of the USAO in July 2007 regarding the Epstein case, specifically Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a two-year prison term. It highlights a pivotal meeting on July 26, 2007, where supervisor Matthew Menchel ordered prosecutors and FBI agents to halt federal investigative steps because Acosta had decided to offer a 'two-year state deal' instead of federal charges. The text notes that prosecutors were actively preparing a revised indictment and seeking to investigate Epstein's assistants just days before this directive was issued.
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
This document is a page from a legal report detailing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's testimony to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding his decision not to federally prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta justified his actions by citing the Petite policy, which respects state sovereignty, arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice" like no jail time, which did not occur with Epstein's two-year state sentence. He also expressed concerns that a federal trial would be traumatic for victims and could set a bad legal precedent by conflating state-level solicitation with federal trafficking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg
This legal document from April 2021 details events from May 2007 concerning the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, revealing significant internal disagreement within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutor Villafaña strongly objected to holding further meetings with Epstein's defense team, led by counsel Lefcourt, fearing it would compromise their strategy, and documented her dissent in a draft email to her supervisors, Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman. The document highlights the strategic conflicts among prosecutors as they considered how to proceed with the high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
This legal document details internal conflicts within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña was perceived by her managers, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, as rushing to indict, creating tension and disagreement over the case's timeline and direction. The document highlights differing perspectives on the urgency of the case and the decision-making process, as investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00003228.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications regarding the initial federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights emails from prosecutor Lourie to Menchel discussing a 50-page prosecution memo, the strategy to use only 'clean victims' (those without impeachment baggage), and the assertion that the State Attorney's Office intentionally sabotaged their own grand jury case. The document also covers OPR interviews where Menchel recalls this as his introduction to the case, and then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta admits he likely did not read the prosecution memo, relying instead on his senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg
This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.
DOJ-OGR-00003225.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2006 and early 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt, and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. The defense sought a meeting to "make a pitch," leading to an internal disagreement between prosecutors Villafaña, who opposed the meeting without first receiving documents, and Lourie, who granted the meeting believing it was strategically valuable to hear the defense's theories. Ultimately, a meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, despite Villafaña's objections and her belief that the defense would not provide the requested evidence and would only use the meeting to discredit victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003188.jpg
This document details the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation by Acosta and the USAO. While the report concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct, it determines that his decision to use a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) constituted poor judgment due to flawed applications of federalism and insufficient oversight. Additionally, the document addresses interactions with victims, concluding that attorneys did not violate the CVRA as interpreted at the time, though the lack of consultation is noted.
DOJ-OGR-00003187.jpg
This page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in 2021) summarizes findings regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The report concludes that while Alexander Acosta made the pivotal decision to defer to a state-based plea and approved the NPA, neither he nor the other subject attorneys committed professional misconduct under OPR standards, as Acosta had 'plenary authority' to resolve the case. The document also addresses the District Court's previous finding that the USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003186.jpg
This page from a legal filing details the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into potential misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys. The investigation focuses on two key areas: the negotiation and implementation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) interactions with Epstein's victims, including allegations that the USAO deceived them.
DOJ-OGR-00003185.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically 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 report outlines OPR's analytical framework, noting that its investigation occurred roughly 12 years after the original events and focused on professional misconduct based on information known to the attorneys at the time, prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea. The investigation was significantly aided by contemporaneous records, such as emails between prosecutors and defense counsel, due to witnesses' faded memories over time.
DOJ-OGR-00004612.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details a technological error that resulted in a gap in U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's emails from May 2007 to April 2008 during a system migration, concluding there was no intentional concealment of evidence. The report also notes that OPR gathered records from the FBI's Palm Beach Office, the Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to reconstruct the timeline and communications.
DOJ-OGR-00004609.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It concludes that while attorneys did not commit professional misconduct regarding the CVRA or victim communications, Alexander Acosta exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing and by providing insufficient oversight during the NPA negotiation process.
DOJ-OGR-00004607.jpg
This document is the conclusion section of an OPR report detailing an investigation into the USAO's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) authorized by R. Alexander Acosta. The report confirms that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by concealing the NPA from victims and sending misleading letters. It identifies five former USAO attorneys (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña) as subjects of the investigation due to their involvement in the NPA negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00004606.jpg
This page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizes the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and the FBI for their handling of communications with victims in the Epstein case. The report finds that the decision to keep the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) secret and the delivery of inconsistent messages left victims feeling ignored and undermined public confidence. Decisions by officials Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña are noted as contributing factors to these failures in providing transparent and unified communication.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00023096.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the final days of plea negotiations between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in August 2007. It includes a transcript of a letter signed by Matthew Menchel (on behalf of U.S. Attorney Acosta) setting a non-negotiable two-year incarceration term and an August 17 deadline. The narrative explains that the deadline was set to allow prosecutor Villafaña time to investigate Epstein's assistants and computers in New York if the deal was rejected, and notes that Menchel sent this letter on his final day at the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00023077.jpg
This document details prosecutor Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for pursuing a state-level, pre-indictment resolution in the Epstein case. Acosta cited the novelty of trafficking prosecutions at the time, issues with witnesses and evidence, and the belief that a state resolution offered more flexibility than a federal one. The document also includes statements from other legal professionals, Menchel and Villafaña, who described the general aversion of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida to binding plea agreements like Rule 11(c) pleas.
DOJ-OGR-00025174.jpg
This document is a comprehensive legal preservation and production request sent by attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein's family (based out of Boston) to federal authorities including the MCC, FBI, and USAO. It demands the preservation of all physical, electronic, and video evidence regarding Epstein's detention, the July 23rd suicide attempt, and his death on August 10, 2019, specifically targeting logs, cell videos, and staff identities from the 9th floor SHU unit.
DOJ-OGR-00005549.jpg
This legal document details the recollections of an individual identified as "AK" regarding meetings about the Epstein case after February 29, 2016. AK describes meeting with attorneys who provided information on Epstein's conduct beyond Virginia Roberts, and a subsequent meeting with Dan Stein, Chief of the Criminal Division, where they decided on an action plan. This plan involved AK contacting Sean Watson of the FBI to have him inquire with Miami agents about their dissatisfaction with the resolution of the original Florida case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity