State Attorney’s Office
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
PBPD Chief Reiter
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Inter agency |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Plea agreement | Terms of an agreement where Epstein pleads guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution an... | 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm... | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed single deposition of Jane Doe No. 5 to be used for both criminal and civil matters in ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The State Attorney's Office decided to present the Epstein case to a grand jury. | Florida | View |
| 2007-09-12 | Meeting | Lourie, Villafaña [+others] meet with Epstein’s counsel and the State Attorney’s Office to discus... | N/A | View |
| 2006-07-24 | Legal action | The State Attorney's Office charged and arrested Epstein. The FBI in West Palm Beach formally ope... | West Palm Beach | View |
| 2006-04-01 | Plea offer | The State Attorney’s Office offered Epstein an opportunity to plead guilty to a third-degree felo... | N/A | View |
| 2005-01-01 | Legal action | The PBPD, with assistance from the State Attorney's Office, obtained a search warrant for Epstein... | N/A | View |
EFTA00014110.pdf
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida to attorney Roy Black regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The letter alleges that Epstein's participation in a work release program constitutes a material breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement, which required incarceration without community control. The U.S. Attorney demands Epstein withdraw from the program and complete his eighteen-month term of imprisonment as agreed.
DOJ-OGR-00030385.jpg
In a letter dated April 21, 2008, attorney Stuart S. Mermelstein informs attorney Jack A. Goldberger that his firm is representing a client identified as 'Jane Doe No. 5' in matters concerning the case *State of Florida v. Jeffrey E. Epstein*. Mermelstein requests that all future communication regarding his client be directed to his office and proposes scheduling a single deposition to be used for both the criminal and civil matters, subject to agreement and approval from the State Attorney's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00002535.jpg
This document is an executive summary of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) in 2007-2008. It outlines the factual background, starting with the 2005 Palm Beach Police Department investigation, the subsequent state indictment, and the referral to federal authorities. The summary details how the federal investigation led to a controversial non-prosecution agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2007, and notes that the OPR also investigated whether prosecutors committed misconduct by failing to consult with or misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021675.jpg
This legal document discusses a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein that included a provision protecting potential co-conspirators, though Maxwell was not named or a party to it. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) charged Maxwell. Her attempts to dismiss these charges based on the NPA were denied by the District Court, which concluded the NPA did not bind the USAO-SDNY.
DOJ-OGR-00021508.jpg
This legal document, part of a larger agreement, outlines the terms under which Jeffrey Epstein will address civil claims from victims identified by the United States government. Epstein agrees that after he is sentenced, the U.S. will provide a list of victims to his attorneys, and he will pay for an attorney representative for them. For any victims who file suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein agrees not to contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and waives his right to contest liability and damages up to an agreed-upon amount, with the stipulation that this agreement is not an admission of liability for any other purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00021507.jpg
This document is page three of a legal agreement detailing the terms of a guilty plea by Epstein in Palm Beach County. Epstein agrees to plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors, and in return, a binding 30-month sentence is recommended, comprising 18 months in county jail and 12 months of community control. The agreement is contingent on judicial approval and includes Epstein waiving his right to appeal the conviction and sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021500.jpg
This page is part of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (R. Alexander Acosta). It outlines that federal prosecution is deferred provided Epstein pleads guilty to specific Florida state charges regarding minors and serves at least two years in prison. The document details the specific statutes violated, including lewd and lascivious battery on a child and solicitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021474.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the Epstein case, specifically criticizing Alexander Acosta's handling of victim notification. It details how Acosta intervened to stop his staff (Villafaña and Sloman) from implementing their notification plan, instead deferring responsibility to the State Attorney and Chief Reiter without ensuring a proper process was in place. Consequently, many victims were unaware of Epstein's plea hearing and only learned of the outcome through the media or after the fact.
DOJ-OGR-00021436.jpg
This document describes the events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in a Florida state court on June 30, 2008, at which no victims were present. It details how federal prosecutors, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, deliberately withheld written victim notifications until after the plea, based on a prior agreement. The text also notes that while subpoenas were issued to some victims, the State's efforts to ensure their participation or notification before the hearing were minimal or ineffective.
DOJ-OGR-00021434.jpg
This legal document details conflicting accounts regarding the notification of victims for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008, state plea hearing. It focuses on communications between prosecutor Villafaña, investigator Reiter, and victim's attorney Edwards, particularly concerning a list of victims that was created and subsequently destroyed. The document highlights discrepancies in recollections from various depositions and declarations about what information was shared and with whom, forming a key part of the CVRA litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021413.jpg
This legal document details the contentious communications in late November and early December 2007 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The core conflict revolved around the timing, content, and legal necessity of notifying victims about Epstein's upcoming state plea hearing, with the defense arguing for delay and review, and the prosecution asserting its obligations and threatening to void the plea agreement. The dispute involved a series of letters and instructions, highlighting the friction in executing the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00021412.jpg
This legal document details the federal handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case in late 2007, specifically around his state plea hearing. It reveals that federal officials, including Villafaña, did not inform new victims of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because they believed Epstein would still be federally charged. The document also outlines the coordination and communication challenges between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the State Attorney's Office regarding who was responsible for notifying victims for the state court proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00021401.jpg
This legal document details investigator Villafaña's account of her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding the resolution of the federal case. Villafaña reported to OPR that victims had varied opinions, with many not wanting to testify or have Epstein prosecuted due to fears about privacy, safety, and public disclosure. Declarations from 2017 by both Villafaña and an FBI case agent corroborate that victims expressed significant concerns and did not uniformly push for prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021361.jpg
This legal document details the post-meeting communications and ongoing negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office (represented by Acosta and Sloman) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights a significant dispute over alleged concessions Acosta made during a breakfast meeting, as claimed by Lefkowitz in an October 23, 2007 letter, and a contemporaneous draft response from the USAO refuting those claims.
DOJ-OGR-00021349.jpg
This legal document, part of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes whether Alexander Acosta's actions in the Jeffrey Epstein case were motivated by improper influences. It argues that Acosta's decision to pursue a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA), which included jail time and sex offender registration, was a more stringent outcome than the likely state-level sentence, which prosecutor Menchel described as a mere 'slap on the wrist.' The document uses this and other evidence, including recollections from prosecutors Sloman and Menchel, to suggest Acosta was not acting to improperly benefit Epstein but was navigating complex policy and federalism issues.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
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-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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
This document describes the conflicting accounts surrounding a breakfast meeting between prosecutor Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz. A letter from Lefkowitz claims Acosta promised the USAO would not interfere with Epstein's state-level plea deal, a claim Acosta's office refuted in an unsent draft letter calling it "inaccurate." The text also details Acosta's later, differing recollections of the meeting and contrasts them with media reports that a secret deal was struck at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00021284.jpg
This document details the finalization and signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein on September 24, 2007. It describes how Acosta made crucial last-minute edits to the agreement, removing requirements for the state court and State Attorney's Office, and how Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz, transmitted the signed agreement with a request for it to be kept confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00021268.jpg
This legal document details plea negotiations in September 2007 between prosecutor Villafaña and Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz. It outlines the development of a 'hybrid' plea agreement involving federal and state charges, a proposed 18-month sentence, and a victim's fund. The document also reveals significant internal dissent among Villafaña's colleagues, particularly Lourie and Acosta, who criticized a proposed assault charge as weak and suggested finding an alternative.
DOJ-OGR-00021240.jpg
This legal document details a disagreement between prosecutors Menchel and Villafaña in July 2007 regarding a proposed state plea deal to resolve a federal investigation into Epstein. Menchel, asserting the decision was ultimately made by Alex Acosta, defended the state plea, while Villafaña argued it was contrary to Department of Justice policy, did not reflect the gravity of the offense, and went against the wishes of victims she had consulted.
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta justifies the decision not to pursue a more aggressive federal prosecution by citing the Petite policy, which presumes deference to state prosecutions, and arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice." He also expresses concerns that a federal trial would have set unfavorable legal precedent regarding solicitation versus trafficking and would have been traumatic for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
This legal document details the early stages of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in July and August 2006. It highlights the internal communication dynamics, showing investigator Villafaña bypassing her immediate supervisor to report directly to a senior management team in Miami, including Sloman and Acosta. The document also reveals the FBI's distrust of the local State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein, and describes the initial evidence-gathering efforts, which included flight manifests and victim interviews.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity