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-00023132.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea following the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team, including Kenneth Starr calling senior DOJ official Alice Fisher, and disagreements between the USAO and defense regarding the timeline for the plea entry, which was eventually set for January 4, 2008. The document also highlights internal communications regarding Epstein's failure to use 'best efforts' to comply with the NPA timeline.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019230.jpg
This document is page 7 of a letter addressed to Honorable Mark Filip, dated May 19, 2008. It details allegations that Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein leaked confidential information regarding the Epstein case and plea negotiations to New York Times reporter Landon Thomas. The text criticizes the U.S. Attorney's Office, specifically First Assistant Sloman and U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their handling of these leaks and the subsequent internal review.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019229.jpg
This document is page 6 of a letter to the Honorable Mark Filip, dated May 19, 2008, detailing complaints about the conduct of federal prosecutors in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text alleges that prosecutors made unprecedented financial demands, including a requirement for Epstein to pay $150,000 to alleged victims (most of whom were later found to be adults, not minors) and to fund a specific civil attorney chosen by the prosecution. It further alleges a conflict of interest where an Assistant U.S. Attorney recommended a civil lawyer connected to their boyfriend, and notes that First Assistant Sloman's former law partner, Mr. Herman, began filing civil suits against Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031448.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing extreme delays in the FBI's processing of Jeffrey Epstein's FOIA requests. The author recounts an August 2015 call with Mr. Argall, who indicated that at the current pace of 500 pages every 5.5 months, the remaining 11,000 pages would take ten years to produce. The document argues these delays violate FOIA statutes and Obama-era transparency policies, citing relevant case law (*Clemente v. FBI*) to highlight the unreasonableness of the FBI's timeline.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012134.jpg
This document is a letter dated June 19, 2008, from Kenneth W. Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, Esq. Starr argues that federal prosecutors (USAO/SDFL) improperly interfered in Epstein's state sentencing negotiations by insisting on a harsher sentence (18 months prison + 1 year house arrest) despite claims by Mr. Sloman that they would defer to the State. Starr alleges a 'critical appearance of impropriety' regarding the federal motivation for prosecuting Epstein and requests an oral presentation to review the matter.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012132.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008, arguing that a new New York-based Grand Jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein violates his September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The letter contends that the NPA protects associates like Leslie Groff and [Redacted], and asserts that the new investigation is a 'fishing expedition' lacking federal jurisdiction (internet luring, travel, etc.). The defense claims that statements from three principal accusers (names redacted) actually undermine the prosecution's case and deny essential elements required for federal charges.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012131.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The firm argues that a previous review of the Epstein case by the DOJ/CEOS was insufficient and requests a true 'de novo' review, citing recent Supreme Court decisions (*Santos* and *Cuellar*) that weaken the federal case. The letter complains that AUSA Villafana has violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement by re-initiating a grand jury investigation and subpoenaing a [redacted] individual to provide testimony and documents (photos, emails, phone records) on July 1, 2008.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025359.jpg
This document is page 7 of a letter to Mark Filip dated May 19, 2008, detailing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein leaking confidential plea negotiation details and prosecution theories to New York Times reporter Landon Thomas, while First Assistant Sloman denied the specificity of these leaks. The text criticizes the USAO for potential political and financial motivations and mentions a review by CEOS regarding U.S. Attorney Acosta's discretion in the prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025354.jpg
This document is page 2 of a letter dated May 19, 2008, addressed to the Honorable Mark Filip from Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. The letter argues against federal prosecution, citing a review by CEOS (Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section) initiated by Mr. Acosta which found that while prosecution wasn't impossible, it relied on a 'novel application' of federal law. The authors allege that the USAO in Miami is engaging in misconduct, specifically by commingling criminal law with a civil remedy intended to profit specific lawyers, and request a senior-level review by the Justice Department.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021651.jpg
This FBI document, dated February 17, 2009, reports on the execution of an investigative lead (Serial 174) under the Jeffrey Epstein case file (Child Prostitution). It details that on January 15, 2009, Federal Agents coordinated through the International Operations Asia Unit appeared at a residence (location redacted) and served a female subject with a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office. The document encloses the signed Acknowledgment of Service form and considers the lead covered.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021640.jpg
This is an internal FBI Electronic Communication dated November 25, 2008, regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Child Prostitution investigation (Case ID 31E-MM-108062). The document details a conversation between an FBI employee (ALAT) and a redacted victim who refused to meet in person to receive a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), requesting it be delivered instead. The document confirms the letter was delivered and references an enclosed report regarding the identification of an individual.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021457.jpg
This FBI memo from May 2007 requests the travel of a former co-case agent to Palm Beach to assist with the upcoming indictment, arrest, and detention hearing of Jeffrey Epstein. It details that the investigation, opened in July 2006, involves the recruitment of underage females from local high schools for sexual activity in exchange for payments between $200 and $1,000. The document indicates that the FBI and USAO are anticipating imminent indictments.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012140.jpg
A legal letter from Kenneth Starr (Kirkland & Ellis) to John Roth dated June 19, 2008, regarding Jeffrey Epstein's case. Starr disputes a claim by Mr. Sloman that the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) was willing to defer sentencing length to the State, asserting instead that federal prosecutors insisted on a specific prison term (18 months plus house arrest). Starr argues this created an appearance of impropriety and requests an oral presentation to facilitate Roth's independent review of the matter.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012139.jpg
A letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, Esq. dated June 19, 2008, arguing that the USAO is withholding exculpatory Brady evidence regarding witness interviews. The defense alleges the federal prosecution is politically motivated due to Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and accuses prosecutors AUSA Villafana and FAUSA Sloman of specific ethical misconduct and conflicts of interest.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012138.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The letter argues that a new Grand Jury subpoena violates Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and asserts that the investigation in New York lacks the federal elements (internet luring, coercion, etc.) necessary for prosecution. The defense claims that three principal accusers (names redacted) have given sworn statements that contradict the prosecution's case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity