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-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021345.jpg
This legal document details the significant reluctance of Jeffrey Epstein's victims to participate in a public trial, primarily due to privacy concerns, fear of public exposure, and emotional distress. Statements from officials Villafaña and Lourie, along with a declaration from an FBI agent, indicate that this victim sentiment was a major factor for the U.S. Attorney's Office in its handling of the case. The document highlights specific instances of victim trauma, such as a teenager's distress when her parents discovered her involvement after the FBI left a business card at their home.
DOJ-OGR-00021344.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations, specifically noting that key decisions were made before US Attorney Acosta met with defense counsel Lefkowitz. The report cites prosecutor Villafaña's explanation that the decision to pursue an NPA was driven by evidentiary risks and victim privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021342.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that there was no evidence that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein was influenced by bribes, corruption, or his wealth and status. It notes that while Epstein was not initially well-known to the FBI agents or prosecutors in 2006, press coverage in July 2006 alerted them to his high-profile connections, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. An FBI agent is quoted acknowledging they knew who had been on Epstein's plane.
DOJ-OGR-00021340.jpg
This legal document, a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) did not violate department policy by declining to prosecute two of Epstein's foreign national assistants, which would have triggered their deportation. The report also states that the evidence does not establish that prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, were influenced by improper motives like Epstein's wealth when they agreed to terms favorable to him.
DOJ-OGR-00021339.jpg
This legal document is a page from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to approve a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein, which included an 18-month state sentence and a provision not to prosecute unidentified 'potential co-conspirators,' did not violate a clear and unambiguous Department policy and therefore did not constitute professional misconduct. The report distinguishes between 'transactional immunity' and 'use immunity' in its analysis of the agreement's terms.
DOJ-OGR-00021337.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The OPR concludes that U.S. Attorney Acosta did not violate any clear standards or commit professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation through the NPA, which required Epstein to plead to state charges. The report affirms that Acosta had the authority to make this decision and that the attorneys involved exercised sufficient competence and diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
This document is page 135 (SA-161) of a legal report or filing (likely a DOJ OGR review) analyzing the conduct of U.S. Attorney Acosta in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It argues that Acosta's decision to decline federal prosecution and enter into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) fell within the broad discretion granted to U.S. Attorneys and did not constitute professional misconduct, citing the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) and Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00021334.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It concludes that attorneys Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct because they acted under the direction and approval of U.S. Attorney Acosta, who held broad discretionary authority. The report specifically notes that OPR found no violation of clear statutes or policies in the negotiation and entry into the NPA, including the controversial provision regarding the non-prosecution of unidentified third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00021333.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the public scrutiny following the 2018 Miami Herald report and OPR's investigation into whether the 'sweetheart deal' was motivated by improper influence. The text confirms that Alexander Acosta reviewed, revised, and approved the NPA, accepting full responsibility for it during his OPR interview.
DOJ-OGR-00021316.jpg
This legal document details concerns from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), voiced by an individual named Villafaña, regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release arrangement in Palm Beach County. Villafaña alleges that Epstein's lawyers schemed to make him eligible and that his application contained significant inaccuracies, such as listing a foundation with his lawyer's phone number as his employer. The document also notes a potential conflict of interest where Epstein paid thousands of dollars per week to off-duty sheriff's deputies for protection, seemingly in violation of work release rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021315.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts in November 2008 regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. Prosecutor Villafaña argued Epstein's 12-hour-a-day release to the 'Florida Science Foundation' breached his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) requiring 24-hour confinement, prompting her to ask superiors if she could indict him. Concurrently, USAO official Alex Acosta recused himself from the case due to employment discussions with Epstein's defense firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021314.jpg
This document details the conflict between federal prosecutors (USAO) and local officials regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. It reveals that Epstein and his lawyer, Jack Goldberger, misled the court about Epstein's employment at the 'Florida Science Foundation,' a shell entity created in November 2007 using Goldberger's office address, despite Epstein claiming in court it had existed for 15 years. The Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed Epstein on work release in October 2008 without notifying the USAO, contradicting previous assurances.
DOJ-OGR-00021310.jpg
This document details events in late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, where federal authorities concluded their review and declined to intervene further. Subsequently, federal prosecutor Villafaña discovered the proposed state plea agreement's sentencing terms appeared to violate the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by not requiring Epstein to be confined in the county jail, leading her to suspect foul play.
DOJ-OGR-00021309.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal review of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2008. It describes how Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and prosecutor John Roth reviewed defense appeals (initiated by Ken Starr) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), with Filip ultimately dismissing the defense's arguments as 'ludicrous' and refusing to meet with Epstein. The text also highlights prosecutor Marie Villafaña's sarcastic and angry reaction to learning that State Attorney Barry Krischer had secretly negotiated a light 90-day jail sentence for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021308.jpg
This legal document details communications from May 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, where his defense team, including Starr and Whitley, petitioned the Deputy Attorney General for a review. They argued the federal prosecution was unwarranted, irregular, and politically motivated due to Epstein's "close personal association" with former President Bill Clinton. In response, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General instructed the U.S. Attorney's Office to postpone a June 2, 2008 plea deadline pending the completion of this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021301.jpg
This DOJ OPR report excerpt details the breakdown of plea negotiations in early January 2008. Epstein's defense team (Sanchez, Starr, Lefkowitz) pressed US Attorney Acosta and Sloman for a 'watered-down resolution' that involved no jail time and no sex offender registration, threatening 'ugliness in DC' regarding alleged leaks. Prosecutor Villafaña prepared contingency plans to restart the investigation, including interviewing victims in New York and abroad, while Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior conducted a full review of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
This document outlines the negotiations between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the language of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Section 2255 concerning victim rights and monetary damages. On December 19, 2007, Acosta proposed revised language to clarify victim rights as if Epstein had been convicted federally, but the defense rejected this, arguing it was legally incongruous to fit a civil statute into a criminal plea. The document highlights the mounting frustration of the prosecution regarding what they perceived as intentional delays by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.
DOJ-OGR-00021297.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the friction between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (specifically Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Acosta expresses frustration with the defense's 'collateral challenges' and lack of finality, setting a strict deadline of December 7, 2007, for them to commit to the agreement or face trial. The text highlights Acosta's internal justification to OPR regarding his handling of the breach of agreement risks and the involvement of DOJ Headquarters.
DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing events in late November 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes attempts by Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Lefkowitz) to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to complain about the NPA's civil damages provision and victim notification plans. The text highlights internal DOJ dissent, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan calling the deal 'egregious' and 'advantageous for the defendant,' while Prosecutor Villafaña expressed a desire to indict Epstein due to defense tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00021294.jpg
This legal document details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in late 2007, caused by a new strategy from his legal team to appeal to senior Department of Justice officials to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It chronicles communications between the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's attorneys, including Kenneth Starr and Jack Goldberger, regarding scheduling conflicts and Epstein's compliance with the agreement. Ultimately, these efforts delayed the plea hearing by months, with a final date set for January 4, 2008.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity