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-00023326.tif
This document details findings from an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into email records related to the Epstein case. It covers email migration, an email gap in Acosta's inbox attributed to a technological error, and OPR's efforts to obtain email and calendar data from various Department of Justice entities, including the FBI, Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to reconstruct communications concerning the Epstein investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023325.tif
This document is a review of documents obtained by OPR from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), the FBI, and other Department components related to the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. It details the types of records reviewed, including emails, correspondence, and investigative materials, and notes a data gap in Acosta's email records.
DOJ-OGR-00023322.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the handling of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that former U.S. Attorney Acosta, while not committing professional misconduct, exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a state-based plea, citing his failure to complete investigative steps and agreeing to problematic terms. The report states that Acosta's decision was not found to be based on corruption or Epstein's wealth, status, or associations.
DOJ-OGR-00023321.tif
This document is a conclusion from an OPR report detailing the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by federal prosecutors. It outlines the Miami Herald's 2018 report, the subsequent OPR investigation into the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving R. Alexander Acosta, and the findings regarding victim rights violations. The report identifies five former USAO attorneys, including Acosta, as subjects of the investigation concerning their involvement in the NPA and victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif
This document discusses issues related to victim communication and transparency surrounding the Epstein case, highlighting how the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was kept secret, leading to victims feeling ignored and public criticism. It criticizes the USAO for not prioritizing victim communications and notes that decisions by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña contributed to these problems, emphasizing the need for more unified and transparent engagement with victims. OPR recognizes inconsistencies in communication between the FBI and USAO and suggests greater oversight in future cases involving multiple Department components.
DOJ-OGR-00023315.tif
This document analyzes legal conduct related to the Epstein case, focusing on prosecutor Villafaña's alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards in early 2008. It discusses whether her actions violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) concerning false statements and dishonest conduct, referencing the Eleventh Circuit's findings on the government's handling of victim notifications. The text cites several Florida Bar legal cases to support its analysis of attorney conduct and intent.
DOJ-OGR-00023310.tif
This document details the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) findings and criticisms regarding Acosta's handling of victim notification in the Epstein case. It focuses on Acosta's personal involvement in the notification process, his decision to defer responsibility to the State Attorney, and his failure to ensure victims were properly informed of Epstein's state court pleas, despite his staff's efforts. The document highlights the inadequate communication and coordination between the USAO, Acosta, and the State Attorney's Office concerning victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif
This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.
DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif
This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif
This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.
DOJ-OGR-00023273.tif
This document details events surrounding Epstein's state plea, focusing on victim notification failures and the actions of various legal and investigative parties. It highlights Villafaña's efforts to identify victims and contact their attorneys, and statements from victims (Wild, Jane Doe #2) expressing their lack of awareness regarding the plea's implications for their cases. The document also notes discrepancies in the State Attorney's Office's communication about the case closure and Epstein's sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
This document excerpt details discussions and concerns surrounding victim notification and the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta provided accounts to OPR regarding the federal plea process, communication between federal and state authorities, and the challenges of victim identification and notification, including a potential $150,000 payment for victims. The text also highlights discrepancies in victim counts and the impact of Epstein's defense team on inter-agency communications.
DOJ-OGR-00023268.tif
This document details interactions between prosecutor Villafaña, attorney Edwards, and victims' attorneys concerning the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña provided Edwards with the impression of an ongoing, expansive federal investigation but did not disclose the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or other specific case details, citing prosecutorial challenges and grand jury confidentiality. The document also highlights difficulties victims' attorneys faced in obtaining information from Villafaña and notes a government admission that federal charges and the NPA were discussed between Villafaña and Edwards.
DOJ-OGR-00023267.tif
This document discusses the application of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) rights, referencing a federal prosecution related to a 2005 BP oil refinery explosion where victim notification was initially bypassed. It also details how, in June 2008, victims like Wild and Villafaña sought legal representation from Bradley Edwards to understand the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting communications and the role of OPR in investigating such interactions.
DOJ-OGR-00023264.tif
This document details an interview with Villafaña regarding her interactions with victims in a case involving Epstein. It describes her communications about a non-prosecution agreement, the victims' concerns about the legal process and potential exaggeration of claims, and her rationale for not discussing the agreement with some victims. It also includes statements from a CEOS Trial Attorney and an FBI agent about victim notifications and interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023263.tif
This document details FBI interviews of Jeffrey Epstein's victims in early 2008, focusing on victim Wild's willingness to testify and confusion regarding the case's status. It also describes the emotional distress of other victims and communications between officials like Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman regarding victim management and the difficulties of prosecution. The text references contemporary news articles about the case and highlights discrepancies in FBI reporting of victim interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023262.tif
This document details the efforts of FBI agent Villafaña, the FBI, and a CEOS Trial Attorney in organizing the case against Epstein and interviewing victims between January and May 2008. It describes an attorney's attempt to file civil litigation against Epstein and the reporting of a $50 million civil suit and an anticipated plea deal by the New York Post. The document also notes that the FBI and prosecutors interviewed additional victims and that an FBI report indicates a victim's belief that Epstein should be prosecuted.
DOJ-OGR-00023254.tif
This document excerpt details legal arguments and communications surrounding victim notification in the Epstein case in late 2007. It highlights disagreements between legal representatives (Starr, Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta, Villafaña) regarding victim status, notification requirements, and the appropriate compensation mechanisms, with a specific focus on an individual referred to as 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif
This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.
DOJ-OGR-00023248.tif
This document is page 210 of a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations and external pressure regarding victim notification in the Epstein case during October 2007. It highlights defense attorney Lefkowitz's aggressive efforts to prevent the government from notifying victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), arguing it would violate confidentiality. It also details an internal ethics consultation where a Professional Responsibility Officer advised prosecutors to stop notifying victims if they were concerned about impeachment material.
DOJ-OGR-00023246.tif
This document details the process of informing victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, including differing accounts of those communications. It highlights Villafaña's role in directing victim notifications and the USAO's confidentiality clause. News reports from October 2007 confirm Epstein's plea deal for state charges and the federal agreement to drop its probe, with victim Courtney Wild providing a contrasting recollection of the information she received.
DOJ-OGR-00023245.tif
This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023242.tif
This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity