Marie Villafaña
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Sloman
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey H. Sloman
|
Professional supervisor subordinate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Negotiating parties |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley James Edwards
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Barry Krischer
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Professional adversarial negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley James Edwards
|
Professional opposing counsel interaction |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Subordinate supervisor |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Belohlavek
|
Cooperative inter agency |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Sloman
|
Supervisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley James Edwards
|
Professional communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Barry Krischer
|
Professional negotiation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Supervisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alex Acosta
|
Subordinate supervisor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Matt Menchel
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
case agent
|
Professional reporting |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alexander Acosta
|
Subordinate superior |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
CEOS Chief
|
Subordinate supervisor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Subordinate supervisor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Signing of the final Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion between Case Agents and Villafaña | Unknown | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2017-01-01 | N/A | Villafaña Declaration in CVRA litigation regarding her views on the negotiated resolution. | Court filing | View |
| 2008-06-27 | N/A | AUSA Villafaña receives copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-06-27 | N/A | AUSA Villafaña received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-31 | N/A | Victim interviews conducted. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-12-14 | N/A | Meeting between Epstein counsel, Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, the FBI SAC, and Marie Villafaña where... | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-21 | N/A | Negotiations regarding Sexual Offender Registration Requirement | Florida/West Palm Beach | View |
| 2007-09-20 | N/A | Disagreement/miscommunication regarding the signing of Epstein's plea agreement. Acosta wanted th... | Internal USAO correspondence | View |
| 2007-09-20 | N/A | Villafaña sends final version of plea agreement to Defense after Acosta's edits. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-17 | N/A | Date referenced when Villafaña sent a draft Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to Lefkowitz. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Villafaña in negotiations with Epstein's lawyers while FBI investigation was ongoing. | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-08 | N/A | "The meeting on Epstein" involving Acosta, Oosterbaan, and others. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-08-01 | N/A | Investigative steps (New York trip) postponed. | New York | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Plea bargain negotiation and agreement | Florida | View |
EFTA00020711.pdf
This document is a 'Second Supplemental Privilege Log' from the case Jane Doe v. United States, listing internal DOJ, FBI, and USAO communications withheld from civil discovery. The log chronicles the timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from late 2006 to August 2008, detailing the internal deliberations regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), plea negotiations, and the drafting of the indictment. It reveals critical details such as internal disagreements over plea terms, Epstein's refusal to plead to anything other than 'assault on the plane,' Jay Lefkowitz's admission that he never intended Epstein to register as a sex offender, and the government's struggles with victim notification and harassment by Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00021472.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing the failure of the USAO (specifically Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman) to coordinate with the State Attorney's Office regarding victim notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 2008 plea hearing. It reveals that despite a draft letter in December 2007 intended to provide a list of victims to the state, no evidence exists that the letter was sent, leaving state prosecutors (Krischer and Belohlavek) unaware of the federal identified victims. A footnote highlights that Epstein's attorneys explicitly asked the USAO not to inform victims of their rights under state charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021409.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein investigation. It details the lack of communication between federal agents and victims regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically noting that victims were not informed that federal charges were precluded. The text highlights FBI agents' discomfort with the NPA's monetary damages provision, fearing it could be used to impeach victims in court or look like 'offering a bribe'.
DOJ-OGR-00021384.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the handling of the Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office. It details a significant communication breakdown between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and AUSA Marie Villafaña regarding the signing of Epstein's 2007 plea agreement (NPA), where Villafaña felt forced to sign a deal she opposed while Acosta claimed he intended to give her veto power. It also highlights how senior management (Menchel) blocked Villafaña from meeting directly with Acosta, resulting in final decisions being made without input from the prosecutor most familiar with the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021370.jpg
This document is page 170 of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report evaluating Alexander Acosta's conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by prematurely resolving the federal investigation through a state plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) based on a flawed application of the 'Petite policy.' The report notes that Acosta failed to strengthen the federal case (e.g., by obtaining Epstein's missing computers) and that the crimes involved substantial federal interests including the sexual exploitation of children and interstate travel.
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-00021285.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal communications regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts by the prosecution team (Villafaña, Acosta) to limit the disclosure of the agreement's terms, specifically regarding financial damages, to the Palm Beach Police Chief and the public. The document outlines the specific provisions of the NPA, including the guilty plea to solicitation of minors, the 30-month recommended sentence structure, and the handling of victim damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021281.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details internal confusion and justifications regarding the broad immunity given to co-conspirators, with officials claiming they did not realize it would protect high-profile associates. The text also covers negotiations on September 21, 2007, between State Attorney Krischer and federal prosecutor Villafaña regarding Epstein's sexual offender registration and jail time, including a notable email from Krischer stating he was glad the deal was worked out for 'reasons I won't put in writing.'
DOJ-OGR-00021277.jpg
This document outlines the internal and external communications of the US Attorney's Office regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea negotiations on September 20, 2007. It details U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta's refusal to sign the plea agreement personally, insisting the trial team sign it, and his refusal to alter standard charging language. The text also highlights a critical dispute where Epstein's defense attempted to change the charge from solicitation of minors (registrable) to forcing adults into prostitution (non-registrable), which the prosecution rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021276.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely OPR) detailing internal communications on September 19, 2007, between prosecutors Villafaña, Lourie, and U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz. While Villafaña and Lourie strongly recommended ending negotiations due to what they perceived as the defense's "bad faith" tactics of re-inserting rejected provisions, Acosta instructed them to continue trying to "work it out" rather than indict immediately. The page ends mid-sentence with Villafaña expressing concern about "caving" to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021231.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing internal DOJ deliberations in May 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights a conflict between prosecutors Lourie (who favored meeting with defense) and Villafaña (who strongly opposed it, arguing the case warranted prison time rather than probation negotiations). The text includes details of emails and a draft memo where Villafaña expresses concern that meeting with Epstein's lawyers, including Lefcourt and Dershowitz, would reveal too much prosecution strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021226.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications between federal prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel) regarding the initial prosecution memorandum for the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights the prosecutors' concerns about Epstein's high-profile defense team, the belief that state prosecutors intentionally sabotaged the case in the grand jury, and strategic discussions about selecting 'clean' victims to ensure a successful indictment. The document also notes Acosta's lack of recollection regarding reading the specific prosecution memo, citing his reliance on senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00021224.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts and meetings with Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in early 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña disagreed with her supervisor, Lourie, about meeting defense attorneys Sanchez and Lefcourt, arguing it would reveal government strategy without gaining concessions. On February 1, 2007, the defense presented a 25-page letter attacking victim credibility, denying federal jurisdiction, and claiming violations of the Petite policy.
DOJ-OGR-00021207.jpg
This document is an investigative timeline detailing the roles and responsibilities within the USAO during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from mid-2006 through mid-2009. It outlines key personnel like Alexander Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie, and Marie Villafaña, along with their positions. The timeline also highlights significant events including the opening of the federal investigation, the signing of an NPA, Epstein's guilty plea in state court, and his release from incarceration.
DOJ-OGR-00021205.jpg
This document outlines the professional histories and specific roles of several key figures from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) who were involved in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It details the career paths of Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, and Andrew C. Lourie within the USAO, describing their supervisory responsibilities, participation in meetings with defense counsel, and involvement in negotiating the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text also notes the career transitions of former U.S. Attorney Acosta, including his recusal from the Epstein matter and subsequent roles as Secretary of Labor and university dean.
DOJ-OGR-00021195.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents (page xix) from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines findings that prosecutors (Acosta, Villafaña, Lourie) did not act on improper influence or provide improper benefits based on relationships with defense counsel. However, section V explicitly states that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the investigation through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a state plea deal based on flawed policy applications.
DOJ-OGR-00003284.jpg
This document details the intense plea negotiations over the weekend of September 22-23, 2007, specifically focusing on the defense team's (Sanchez, Lefkowitz) attempts to avoid sex offender registration for Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argued there was a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting and that registration would preclude Epstein from serving his time in a federal camp, which was their primary goal for his safety. The document also includes a footnote indicating State Attorney Krischer faced pressure from Police Chief Reiter regarding the case.
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-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-00003207.jpg
This document, page 31 of a DOJ report (likely the OGR report), details the professional biographies and specific roles of USAO officials Jeffrey Sloman, Matthew Menchel, and Andrew Lourie in the Epstein investigation and the negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights Sloman's negotiation of an NPA addendum, Menchel's communication of the two-year plea deal, and Lourie's role in the NPA negotiations before his departure. The text also notes Alexander Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019 due to criticism regarding the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010570.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 5) stamped by House Oversight, detailing allegations that Epstein's attorneys were aware of his scheme to recruit minors and worked jointly with U.S. Prosecutors to minimize his civil exposure. It cites an October 3, 2007 email from AUSA Marie Villafaña to Epstein's lawyer Jay Lefkowitz, which includes a draft letter stating that the U.S. government identified 40 victims of Epstein in Palm Beach, describing sexual acts ranging from massage to intercourse. The text also notes Epstein's agreement to not contest jurisdiction for civil damages under 18 USC 2255.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023130.jpg
This document, likely a House Oversight exhibit referencing a Miami Herald investigation, details the lenient treatment Jeffrey Epstein received from federal prosecutors. It highlights how prosecutors, specifically Marie Villafaña and Acosta, communicated privately with Epstein's defense team (led by Jay Lefkowitz) to avoid paper trails and agreed to keep the non-prosecution deal secret, effectively bypassing the Crime Victims Rights Act. The text contrasts the prosecutors' view of the crimes as a 'local sex case' with the victims' lawyer's assertion of international sex trafficking involving over 40 identified victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013468.jpg
This document is an affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards detailing his representation of victims of Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Edwards outlines his interactions with Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña, alleging that the prosecution failed to inform him of a secret non-prosecution agreement and withheld evidence despite admitting to having proof of Epstein molesting at least 40 minors. The affidavit highlights the timeline of the plea deal and the subsequent revelation that federal prosecution would be blocked.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013363.jpg
This document is an affidavit by attorney Bradley James Edwards detailing his representation of three victims (L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe) against Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Edwards describes his interactions with AUSA Marie Villafaña, alleging that the U.S. Attorney's Office withheld critical information regarding a plea agreement that blocked federal prosecution, despite admitting they had evidence of Epstein molesting at least 40 minors. The affidavit outlines the timeline of the plea deal revelation in June and July 2008.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013323.jpg
This page from a legal document details allegations that Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys and U.S. prosecutors communicated to minimize his civil exposure, referencing a 2007 email and proposed letter. It quotes a joint statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel regarding an investigation that identified forty young women as victims of Epstein's solicitation and abuse in Palm Beach.
Negotiation Dispute
Stating she 'bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would have on Mr. Epstein.'
Re: Request for meeting with Acosta
Sternly worded rebuke rejecting the request for a meeting.
Reactions of victims
Relayed reactions of Jane Doe #14 and #13 regarding Epstein's sentence and need for counseling.
N/A
Asking him to tell Chief Reiter 'the good news' but leave out damages; expressed desire to meet victims personally.
Notice of plea hearing
Villafaña called to provide notice regarding a hearing but did not disclose that state pleas would block federal prosecution.
Notice of Epstein's plea hearing
AUSA Villafaña called Edwards to provide notice to his clients about Epstein's plea hearing scheduled for June 30, 2008.
Notice of hearing
Provided notice of a hearing on June 30, but did not disclose the non-prosecution agreement implications.
Representation of Jane Doe #1 and #2, information regardi...
Edwards contacted AUSA Villafaña to inform her of his representation of Jane Doe #1 and #2 and to request a meeting to provide information regarding Epstein.
Representation of Jane Does
Informed her of representation and asked to meet to provide information regarding Epstein.
Representation of victims
Edwards informed AUSA Villafaña of his representation of Jane Doe #1 (E.W.) and Jane Doe #2 (L.M.) and asked to meet.
OPR Self-Reporting
Regarding self-reporting to OPR false allegations of ethics violations.
Lefkowitz Admission
Regarding Alex Acosta telephone conference with Jay Lefkowitz where Lefkowitz admitted that he never intended to have Epstein plead guilty to an offense that required sex offender registration.
Reaction to 90-day plea deal
"Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him [Epstein] a party..."
Jail Time calculation
Confirmed Epstein would serve 15 months; mentioned he could serve time at 'the stockade'. Includes quote: 'Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won’t put in writing.'
Defense Proposal
Informed Villafaña of defense proposal regarding registration.
Gain Time
Inquired about 'gain time' and ensuring Epstein serves a specific amount of time in jail.
Update on plea negotiations
Informed that the deadline is Monday evening, things don't look promising because defense changed plea from solicitation of minors to forcing adults (non-registrable).
Forwarding Acosta's email
Instructing Villafaña to change the signature block to her name and send as final to Jay [Lefkowitz].
Revised plea agreement
Sent revised plea agreement; advised that if returning to state plea only, the draft NPA from Sept 17 would control.
Forwarding Acosta's changes
Instructed Villafaña to incorporate Acosta's suggestions, change signature block to her name, and send as final to Jay [Lefkowitz].
Plea to federal charges
Response that Epstein was only willing to plead to assault on the plane; and rejection of facts supporting assault on the plane charge.
Wording of sentencing agreement
Discussing the inclusion of co-conspirators and standard language, but explicitly stating a preference not to highlight other crimes or other chargeable persons to the judge.
Litigation Stay
Advised Black that USAO was not willing to agree to a stay.
New York Trip and Litigation Stay
Inquired if she could proceed with NY trip and oppose Black's request to stay litigation regarding computers. Reported interview with 14-year-old victim.
The meeting on Epstein
Regarding 'The meeting on Epstein' involving high-level DOJ staff.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity