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-00003217.jpg
This legal document details the aggressive legal tactics employed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including attorney Alan Dershowitz threatening a prosecutor to destroy witnesses. It also outlines the State Attorney's Office's rationale for taking the case to a grand jury, citing the complexity of the case and the problematic possibility that Epstein's minor victims could have been prosecuted for prostitution under the existing state law.
DOJ-OGR-00003188.jpg
This document details the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation by Acosta and the USAO. While the report concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct, it determines that his decision to use a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) constituted poor judgment due to flawed applications of federalism and insufficient oversight. Additionally, the document addresses interactions with victims, concluding that attorneys did not violate the CVRA as interpreted at the time, though the lack of consultation is noted.
DOJ-OGR-00003187.jpg
This page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in 2021) summarizes findings regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The report concludes that while Alexander Acosta made the pivotal decision to defer to a state-based plea and approved the NPA, neither he nor the other subject attorneys committed professional misconduct under OPR standards, as Acosta had 'plenary authority' to resolve the case. The document also addresses the District Court's previous finding that the USAO violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by misleading victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003186.jpg
This page from a legal filing details the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into potential misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys. The investigation focuses on two key areas: the negotiation and implementation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) interactions with Epstein's victims, including allegations that the USAO deceived them.
DOJ-OGR-00003185.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning its investigation into the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys in the Epstein case. The report outlines OPR's analytical framework, noting that its investigation occurred roughly 12 years after the original events and focused on professional misconduct based on information known to the attorneys at the time, prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea. The investigation was significantly aided by contemporaneous records, such as emails between prosecutors and defense counsel, due to witnesses' faded memories over time.
DOJ-OGR-00003016.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that there was no due process violation regarding the timing of an indictment. The Government contends that the delay was justified because two critical witnesses, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, only came forward to be interviewed in August and September 2019, less than a year before the indictment was sought in June 2020. The document cites legal precedents to support the position that delays caused by witness unavailability are permissible and that prosecutors can wait until an investigation is complete before seeking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
This document is page 23 of a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing against her motions to dismiss. The prosecution asserts that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida does not apply to the current indictment or district, and denies her request for discovery due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the document argues that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 because the statute allows prosecution for child sexual abuse offenses as long as the victims are alive, rejecting Maxwell's argument that the statute applies only prospectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
This document is page 47 of a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (2021). It argues that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was not intended to protect Maxwell. Citing an OPR report and an interview with former prosecutor Maria Villafaña, the text states that while prosecutors knew of a 'socialite' friend of Epstein (Maxwell), they had no evidence against her in 2007 and intended the immunity provision to apply only to four specific female assistants.
DOJ-OGR-00002975.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The central issue is whether a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and Epstein also prevents other districts from prosecuting Epstein's co-conspirators. The government contends that the defendant has provided no evidence to support this claim and that legal precedent within the circuit confirms that the NPA does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). It cites a 2013 brief from the USAO-SDFL, an OPR Report, and Department of Justice guidelines to establish that the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to, and did not intend to, prevent Epstein's prosecution in any other federal district. The central theme is that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and did not provide nationwide immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004612.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details a technological error that resulted in a gap in U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's emails from May 2007 to April 2008 during a system migration, concluding there was no intentional concealment of evidence. The report also notes that OPR gathered records from the FBI's Palm Beach Office, the Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to reconstruct the timeline and communications.
DOJ-OGR-00004610.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, filed on May 25, 2021, analyzing the government's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while the decision to delay notifying victims about the NPA in 2008 was not professional misconduct, the government's lack of transparency and poor communication led victims to feel ignored and ill-treated. This conduct created a public misimpression of collusion with Epstein's counsel and undermined confidence in the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004609.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It concludes that while attorneys did not commit professional misconduct regarding the CVRA or victim communications, Alexander Acosta exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing and by providing insufficient oversight during the NPA negotiation process.
DOJ-OGR-00004607.jpg
This document is the conclusion section of an OPR report detailing an investigation into the USAO's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) authorized by R. Alexander Acosta. The report confirms that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by concealing the NPA from victims and sending misleading letters. It identifies five former USAO attorneys (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña) as subjects of the investigation due to their involvement in the NPA negotiations.
DOJ-OGR-00004606.jpg
This page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizes the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and the FBI for their handling of communications with victims in the Epstein case. The report finds that the decision to keep the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) secret and the delivery of inconsistent messages left victims feeling ignored and undermined public confidence. Decisions by officials Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña are noted as contributing factors to these failures in providing transparent and unified communication.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
DOJ-OGR-00023096.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the final days of plea negotiations between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in August 2007. It includes a transcript of a letter signed by Matthew Menchel (on behalf of U.S. Attorney Acosta) setting a non-negotiable two-year incarceration term and an August 17 deadline. The narrative explains that the deadline was set to allow prosecutor Villafaña time to investigate Epstein's assistants and computers in New York if the deal was rejected, and notes that Menchel sent this letter on his final day at the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00023077.jpg
This document details prosecutor Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for pursuing a state-level, pre-indictment resolution in the Epstein case. Acosta cited the novelty of trafficking prosecutions at the time, issues with witnesses and evidence, and the belief that a state resolution offered more flexibility than a federal one. The document also includes statements from other legal professionals, Menchel and Villafaña, who described the general aversion of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida to binding plea agreements like Rule 11(c) pleas.
DOJ-OGR-00023194.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a timeline of meetings between the USAO (including Alexander Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz). It covers the period from February 2007 to January 2008, categorizing meetings as 'Pre-NPA' and 'Post-NPA'. The table logs specific participants and topics, including the presentation of the NPA term sheet, discussions of investigation improprieties, and the negotiation of state plea provisions.
DOJ-OGR-00023132.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea following the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team, including Kenneth Starr calling senior DOJ official Alice Fisher, and disagreements between the USAO and defense regarding the timeline for the plea entry, which was eventually set for January 4, 2008. The document also highlights internal communications regarding Epstein's failure to use 'best efforts' to comply with the NPA timeline.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026792.jpg
This document is a single page containing the email signature block of Carolyn Rangel, President of Deepak Chopra LLC. It features promotional images for books by Wayne Jonas and Deepak Chopra, a standard legal confidentiality disclaimer, and a House Oversight Bates stamp (026792). No message content, dates, or recipients are visible on this specific page.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity