USAO
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 | District Court finding that USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Epstein | 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 | Legal agreement | Signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR investigation into two sets of allegations: 1) the negotiation, execution, and implementation... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Agreement | A Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was signed months before victims were made aware o... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR conducted an investigation into the government's conduct in the Epstein case, reviewing hundr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal negotiation | Negotiations between Epstein's legal team and the USAO, resulting in benefits for Epstein such as... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Entering into the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Government responded to the defense's proposal with a draft proposal to resolve federal crimi... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal negotiation | The USAO proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration to Epstein's team. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | The creation and handling of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein's counsel, which was ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Negotiation | The USAO negotiated with Epstein's defense team, rejecting a provision that would prohibit them f... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR investigated a gap in Acosta's emails related to the Epstein investigation, questioning Acost... | 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 | Lefkowitz sent a follow-up letter to Acosta, expressing USAO's concern about Epstein intentionall... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | The USAO opened its investigation into Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Initiation of image/video file review from Epstein's devices by USAO and FBI. | New York | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Distribution of review protocol for Epstein device files. | New York (implied by sender... | View |
| 2020-10-19 | N/A | Conference call regarding the review of Epstein's devices. | Teleconference | View |
| 2020-08-13 | N/A | Next round of discovery sent via FedEx. | MDC | View |
| 2020-01-10 | Training | The Department’s Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims’ Rights in t... | N/A | View |
| 2019-09-09 | N/A | USAO submits proposed redactions to the OCME report and file for Jeffrey Epstein. | New York | View |
| 2019-08-28 | N/A | Letter sent regarding Autopsy Report confidentiality | New York | View |
| 2019-08-28 | N/A | USAO sent initial letter requesting non-disclosure of specific evidence and agent identities. | New York, NY | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023131.tif
This document details communications and events surrounding a legal agreement, likely related to Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights disagreements over gag order provisions, the selection of a special master, and concerns raised by USAO representative Villafaña regarding the selection of a private attorney and defense attacks. The document mentions the signing of an NPA addendum by Epstein and his attorneys on October 29, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00023129.tif
This document details negotiations and communications surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum in late 2007. It highlights disagreements and strategies among prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, Lourie) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz), including the postponement of Epstein's plea and concerns about Epstein's alleged attempts to discredit victims and influence the legal process. The text also includes Acosta's perspective on not dictating to the state attorney's office.
DOJ-OGR-00023127.tif
This document details discussions and events surrounding the settlement process for victims related to Epstein. It highlights disagreements between Lefkowitz and Villafaña regarding victim communication and legal procedures, and records meetings and email exchanges between Acosta, Sloman, and Lefkowitz concerning an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a breakfast meeting in West Palm Beach in October 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00023122.tif
This document details the finalization and signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. It highlights the edits made by Acosta, including changes to Epstein's plea and sentencing requirements, and communications between various parties like Villafaña, Lourie, and Lefkowitz regarding the agreement's language and confidentiality. The document also notes the USAO's duty to redact protected information before disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00023118.tif
This document details negotiations and internal communications surrounding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein, focusing on the involvement of Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie. Key points include Villafaña's revised NPA which proposed a 30-month sentence for Epstein and included non-prosecution for co-conspirators, and a dispute with Lourie over the inclusion of an immigration waiver for Epstein's foreign national assistants. The document also touches on the USAO's general stance on immigration issues and the reluctance to charge Epstein's accomplices.
DOJ-OGR-00023116.tif
This document excerpt details the breakdown of negotiations for a federal plea agreement for Epstein by September 20, 2007, shifting focus to a state-only resolution to which the defense wanted to avoid sexual offender registration. It describes communications between Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Lourie, and Krischer regarding proposed plea terms, sentencing, and deadlines, highlighting Villafaña's firm stance against further delays and Epstein's apparent goal to avoid sexual offender registration.
DOJ-OGR-00023115.tif
This document details ongoing negotiations and disagreements surrounding a federal plea agreement for Mr. Epstein in September 2007. It highlights the involvement of Assistant State Attorney Villafaña, who communicated with Belohlavek and sent revised agreements to Lefkowitz, and Acosta, who provided feedback on the USAO's 'hybrid' plea agreement to Lourie, emphasizing the trial team's support is crucial. A key point of contention was the change in offense description from solicitation of minors to forcing adults into prostitution, which made the agreement unacceptable to Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00023111.tif
This document details the ongoing plea negotiations for Mr. Epstein, highlighting his reluctance for jail time and the communication between prosecutors Lourie and Villafaña, and defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals a disagreement over the terms of the plea agreement, with the defense proposing significant changes that were rejected by the USAO, including a prohibition on immigration proceedings against Epstein's female assistants. The document also includes a manager's view that direct conversation with Epstein might be necessary to finalize the deal.
DOJ-OGR-00023094.tif
This document details changes made by Menchel to a draft letter by Villafaña regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal, focusing on the shift from a federal plea to a state imprisonment term. It highlights the involvement of several individuals including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie in discussions and decisions surrounding the Rule 11(c) plea, with an email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, suggesting Acosta's ultimate decision to nix the federal plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023328.tif
This document details that victims provided information to OPR regarding their contacts with the FBI and USAO, and OPR also received notifications from the FBI and USAO. This activity occurred before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed or Epstein's state plea hearing, and concerned the federal investigation and Epstein's plea. OPR ultimately received information related to 13 victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023326.tif
This document details findings from an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into email records related to the Epstein case. It covers email migration, an email gap in Acosta's inbox attributed to a technological error, and OPR's efforts to obtain email and calendar data from various Department of Justice entities, including the FBI, Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to reconstruct communications concerning the Epstein investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023322.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the handling of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that former U.S. Attorney Acosta, while not committing professional misconduct, exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a state-based plea, citing his failure to complete investigative steps and agreeing to problematic terms. The report states that Acosta's decision was not found to be based on corruption or Epstein's wealth, status, or associations.
DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif
This document discusses issues related to victim communication and transparency surrounding the Epstein case, highlighting how the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was kept secret, leading to victims feeling ignored and public criticism. It criticizes the USAO for not prioritizing victim communications and notes that decisions by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña contributed to these problems, emphasizing the need for more unified and transparent engagement with victims. OPR recognizes inconsistencies in communication between the FBI and USAO and suggests greater oversight in future cases involving multiple Department components.
DOJ-OGR-00023310.tif
This document details the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) findings and criticisms regarding Acosta's handling of victim notification in the Epstein case. It focuses on Acosta's personal involvement in the notification process, his decision to defer responsibility to the State Attorney, and his failure to ensure victims were properly informed of Epstein's state court pleas, despite his staff's efforts. The document highlights the inadequate communication and coordination between the USAO, Acosta, and the State Attorney's Office concerning victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif
This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.
DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif
This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif
This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.
DOJ-OGR-00023273.tif
This document details events surrounding Epstein's state plea, focusing on victim notification failures and the actions of various legal and investigative parties. It highlights Villafaña's efforts to identify victims and contact their attorneys, and statements from victims (Wild, Jane Doe #2) expressing their lack of awareness regarding the plea's implications for their cases. The document also notes discrepancies in the State Attorney's Office's communication about the case closure and Epstein's sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
This document excerpt details discussions and concerns surrounding victim notification and the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta provided accounts to OPR regarding the federal plea process, communication between federal and state authorities, and the challenges of victim identification and notification, including a potential $150,000 payment for victims. The text also highlights discrepancies in victim counts and the impact of Epstein's defense team on inter-agency communications.
DOJ-OGR-00023268.tif
This document details interactions between prosecutor Villafaña, attorney Edwards, and victims' attorneys concerning the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña provided Edwards with the impression of an ongoing, expansive federal investigation but did not disclose the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or other specific case details, citing prosecutorial challenges and grand jury confidentiality. The document also highlights difficulties victims' attorneys faced in obtaining information from Villafaña and notes a government admission that federal charges and the NPA were discussed between Villafaña and Edwards.
DOJ-OGR-00023267.tif
This document discusses the application of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) rights, referencing a federal prosecution related to a 2005 BP oil refinery explosion where victim notification was initially bypassed. It also details how, in June 2008, victims like Wild and Villafaña sought legal representation from Bradley Edwards to understand the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting communications and the role of OPR in investigating such interactions.
DOJ-OGR-00023264.tif
This document details an interview with Villafaña regarding her interactions with victims in a case involving Epstein. It describes her communications about a non-prosecution agreement, the victims' concerns about the legal process and potential exaggeration of claims, and her rationale for not discussing the agreement with some victims. It also includes statements from a CEOS Trial Attorney and an FBI agent about victim notifications and interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023262.tif
This document details the efforts of FBI agent Villafaña, the FBI, and a CEOS Trial Attorney in organizing the case against Epstein and interviewing victims between January and May 2008. It describes an attorney's attempt to file civil litigation against Epstein and the reporting of a $50 million civil suit and an anticipated plea deal by the New York Post. The document also notes that the FBI and prosecutors interviewed additional victims and that an FBI report indicates a victim's belief that Epstein should be prosecuted.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity