OPR
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | OPR initiated an investigation into allegations that prosecutors in the USAO improperly resolved ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interviews | OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including FBI agents, USAO staff, and Departm... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Investigation | OPR investigated allegations that USAO prosecutors improperly resolved a federal investigation in... | Southern District of Florida | View |
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-00021303.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal Department review between February and June 2008 regarding the Epstein case. It highlights that while Epstein's defense sought a broad review of misconduct and NPA terms, the DOJ only reviewed federal jurisdiction issues. The document also records a 'stand down' order where Oosterbaan instructed a CEOS attorney to cease involvement, and details the formal notification sent by the USAO to the Civil Rights Division classifying the case as 'child prostitution' rather than a matter of 'national interest.'
DOJ-OGR-00021302.jpg
This legal document details how prosecutor Acosta, responding to the defense's desire for a 'fresh face', engaged the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) to review the evidence in the Epstein case. CEOS attorney Villafaña traveled to Florida, interviewed victims, and reported back to Acosta and Sloman on the victims' severe trauma and their desire for significant jail time for Epstein rather than restitution. The document also notes the CEOS Trial Attorney's assessment to OPR that the victim witnesses presented numerous challenges for a potential prosecution.
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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
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-00021289.jpg
This page of a DOJ report details negotiations in October 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Lefkowitz argued strongly against federal agents or the USAO contacting victims about the settlement, citing confidentiality and grand jury rules. The document chronicles the scheduling of a breakfast meeting between US Attorney Acosta and Lefkowitz in West Palm Beach on October 12, 2007, while prosecutor Villafaña was on sick leave.
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-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-00021282.jpg
This legal document details communications from Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, specifically Sanchez and Lefkowitz, to prosecutors Acosta and Lourie on September 22-23, 2007. The defense vehemently argues against a sexual offender registration requirement, claiming it was based on a 'misunderstanding' from a September 12 meeting where they were allegedly told by prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek that the charge was not registrable. The document contains excerpts from emails where the defense calls the registration a 'life sentence' and pleads for reconsideration.
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-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-00021275.jpg
This document details the plea agreement negotiations in the Epstein case on September 19, 2007. It outlines the communications between prosecutor Villafaña and defense counsel Lefkowitz, including Villafaña's push to finalize a deal and Lefkowitz's submission of a 'redline' draft with specific terms. The document also reveals the involvement of Villafaña's colleague, Lourie, who reviewed the draft agreement and questioned certain provisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021273.jpg
This legal document details a critical point in plea negotiations for Mr. Epstein. After prosecutor Lourie believed he had reached an agreement with defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz submitted a revised proposal with substantially different terms, including a shorter sentence and protections for Epstein's assistants. This new proposal caused frustration among the prosecutors and was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021272.jpg
This legal document from a court filing details plea negotiations concerning Jeffrey Epstein on September 18, 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña rejected a proposal from Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, for a 12-month sentence, insisting the U.S. Attorney required at least 18 months. The document includes a detailed email from Villafaña to her colleagues outlining the stalled negotiations and subsequent discussions with Lefkowitz about an alternative plea structure involving two separate charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021270.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the plea negotiations between prosecutor Villafaña and Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz. It outlines the strategy to structure state and federal sentencing to manipulate jurisdiction for prison purposes without alerting the judge. It also explains Villafaña's justification for the non-prosecution agreement covering co-conspirators, stating that the USAO viewed Epstein as the priority and wished to avoid highlighting uncharged conduct to the court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity