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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | Legal negotiation | The USAO proposed a State Plea Resolution, which the Defense rejected. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Plea Negotiations | Unknown | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Negotiation | The NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the NPA evolved significantly. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal case assessment | The USAO considered the importance of victim reluctance and concerns about prevailing at trial in... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Epstein did not plead guilty as the USAO had expected. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2006-05-23 | Investigation initiation | USAO opens federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Victim notification | The FBI and USAO sent introductory notification letters to victims, some of which were hand-deliv... | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Investigation activity | Period of FBI and USAO contacts with victims before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Investigation | The USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Investigation | Period during which the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and related events occurred. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif
This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.
DOJ-OGR-00023248.tif
This document is page 210 of a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations and external pressure regarding victim notification in the Epstein case during October 2007. It highlights defense attorney Lefkowitz's aggressive efforts to prevent the government from notifying victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), arguing it would violate confidentiality. It also details an internal ethics consultation where a Professional Responsibility Officer advised prosecutors to stop notifying victims if they were concerned about impeachment material.
DOJ-OGR-00023246.tif
This document details the process of informing victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, including differing accounts of those communications. It highlights Villafaña's role in directing victim notifications and the USAO's confidentiality clause. News reports from October 2007 confirm Epstein's plea deal for state charges and the federal agreement to drop its probe, with victim Courtney Wild providing a contrasting recollection of the information she received.
DOJ-OGR-00023245.tif
This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023242.tif
This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.
DOJ-OGR-00023236.tif
This document excerpt details the victim notification processes during the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on the actions of an individual named Villafaña and the FBI. It highlights discrepancies and lack of uniformity in victim notification, with Villafaña preparing her own introductory letters to victims while the FBI also sent letters, often without Villafaña's direct knowledge or review, prior to Epstein's guilty plea in 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00023225.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report analyzing the handling of a case involving Epstein, focusing on decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta. It critiques Acosta's judgment and the flawed decision-making process that led to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate the system to his benefit and left victims and the public questioning justice. The OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in his approach to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif
This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.
DOJ-OGR-00023217.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. It criticizes Acosta's decision-making regarding Epstein's plea agreement, which resulted in a reduced sentence of 13 months served, and his failure to pursue computer evidence. OPR concluded that Acosta had a greater obligation to understand the implications of his actions in resolving the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
This document analyzes R. Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution, critiquing his use and interpretation of the Petite policy. It details Acosta's reasoning for federal non-intervention, his view on the state's role, and his concessions during an OPR interview that the outcome was not an appropriate punishment. The text also references the Ashcroft Memo and mentions an estimated sentencing range for Epstein by Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00023207.tif
This document details an OPR investigation finding no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a cooperating witness or 'intelligence asset' in federal matters. It concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving a federal investigation against Epstein through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate his sentence conditions and lacked sufficient federal oversight. The document also references media reports and internal discussions concerning rumors of Epstein's cooperation.
DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing that argues about the scope of plea agreements. It discusses whether a plea agreement made with a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district can prevent prosecutions in other districts, citing several legal precedents like United States v. Alessi and United States v. Russo. The document uses Leslie Groff, an assistant to Epstein, as an example and analyzes factors such as whether other USAOs or the Department of Justice were involved in the negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
This legal document argues that the 'Annabi' court decision is an outlier and inconsistent with the Circuit's established law regarding the interpretation of plea agreements. The author contends that contrary to the District Court's opinion, the Circuit has been reluctant to rely on Annabi's reasoning, which construes ambiguities against the defendant, and has instead consistently held that such ambiguities should be resolved against the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00002540.jpg
This legal document outlines the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a February 21, 2019, court ruling that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) violated victims' rights, the OPR's review examined government conduct, collected extensive records, and conducted over 60 interviews. The investigation identified five subjects, including former U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their roles in the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and related decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 35) from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 24, 2020. The text outlines legal arguments and precedents regarding the Government's obligation (under Rule 16 and Brady) to review and produce records held by other agencies. It cites multiple cases to establish that the prosecution is not required to search other agencies' records (such as the SEC, PCAOB, or FAA) unless a 'joint investigation' was conducted with that specific agency.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that a plea agreement made by a United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district is generally binding on other USAOs and the federal government as a whole. It cites several court cases, such as Gebbie and Van Thournout, to support this majority view, while also acknowledging contrary or more limited rulings from circuits like the Seventh and Sixth in a footnote.
DOJ-OGR-00021757.jpg
This legal document discusses an unusual co-conspirator clause in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein. It reveals that Epstein's defense team initially proposed a broad immunity deal to protect third parties, including "four named female assistants" and other employees like Ms. Maxwell, from any future criminal charges related to the federal investigation. The Government found this proposal "unusual" and countered with a more limited offer confined to the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021492.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, states that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) received information from or about 13 victims. This information pertained to their contacts with the FBI and USAO, and notifications they received about the federal investigation, Epstein's state plea, and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before it was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021491.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice report detailing the sources of information for an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR gathered records from U.S. Attorney's Offices in Florida and Georgia, as well as public records from Florida law enforcement agencies. The investigation also involved extensive interviews with subjects, and over 60 witnesses, including former high-ranking DOJ officials like Mark Filip and Alice Fisher, and communications with attorneys for Epstein's victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021490.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into a significant gap in the email records of an individual named Acosta, specifically from May 2007 to April 2008. The investigation, which was related to the Epstein case, involved questioning witnesses and analyzing data from multiple U.S. Attorney's Offices, the FBI, and other Justice Department divisions. OPR concluded that the email gap was most likely due to a technological error rather than an intentional act to conceal evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the conduct of Alexander Acosta and the USAO regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) due to legal ambiguities at the time, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing. The report also details how an FBI administrative employee sent misleading form letters to victims stating the case was still 'under investigation' without proper coordination with prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021486.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report evaluating U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR concludes that while Acosta did not commit professional misconduct or act on corruption, his decision to resolve the investigation via a state-based plea constituted 'poor judgment' and relied on a 'flawed mechanism.' The report notes Acosta failed to consider the difficulties of relying on state officials and agreed to 'unusual and problematic terms' in the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021485.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report concerning the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a 2018 Miami Herald article, the OPR investigated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The report identifies five former federal prosecutors, including former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, as subjects of the investigation for their roles in negotiating and executing the controversial deal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity