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-00023239.tif
This document details how case agents and an individual named Villafaña solicited victims' opinions on resolving the federal investigation into Epstein. It highlights that victims had varied desires, including some wanting a plea deal, some opposing prosecution, and others wanting jail time, while many expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and the impact of public disclosure on their relationships. The document also notes that Villafaña's records and memory of these interactions were sometimes insufficient for OPR to fully assess the discussions.
DOJ-OGR-00023237.tif
This document details Villafaña's process for victim notification in an unspecified case, where she created her own letters and directed FBI agents to deliver them, believing it provided more assistance than legally required. It highlights that these letters were not reviewed by supervisors and that the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no direct contact with victims in the Epstein matter, despite Villafaña's claim of having shown the letter to a specialist who approved it. The document also touches upon the USAO's lack of standardized victim notification procedures and the context of Epstein-related CVRA litigation in July 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00023236.tif
This document excerpt details the victim notification processes during the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on the actions of an individual named Villafaña and the FBI. It highlights discrepancies and lack of uniformity in victim notification, with Villafaña preparing her own introductory letters to victims while the FBI also sent letters, often without Villafaña's direct knowledge or review, prior to Epstein's guilty plea in 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00023233.tif
This document describes the Automated Victim Notification System (VNS) used by the FBI and USAO to manage victim contacts in criminal cases, including during the Epstein investigation. It details the types of notifications generated and references a 2008 audit report highlighting issues with VNS templates and confusing notifications. The document also clarifies the roles of 'Victim Specialist' (FBI) and 'Victim Witness Specialist' (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00023225.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report analyzing the handling of a case involving Epstein, focusing on decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta. It critiques Acosta's judgment and the flawed decision-making process that led to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate the system to his benefit and left victims and the public questioning justice. The OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in his approach to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif
This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.
DOJ-OGR-00023217.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. It criticizes Acosta's decision-making regarding Epstein's plea agreement, which resulted in a reduced sentence of 13 months served, and his failure to pursue computer evidence. OPR concluded that Acosta had a greater obligation to understand the implications of his actions in resolving the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
This document analyzes R. Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution, critiquing his use and interpretation of the Petite policy. It details Acosta's reasoning for federal non-intervention, his view on the state's role, and his concessions during an OPR interview that the outcome was not an appropriate punishment. The text also references the Ashcroft Memo and mentions an estimated sentencing range for Epstein by Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00023207.tif
This document details an OPR investigation finding no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a cooperating witness or 'intelligence asset' in federal matters. It concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving a federal investigation against Epstein through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate his sentence conditions and lacked sufficient federal oversight. The document also references media reports and internal discussions concerning rumors of Epstein's cooperation.
DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.
DOJ-OGR-00021099.jpg
This document is a page from a 2023 legal filing reviewing the historical handling of the Epstein case. It highlights that the investigation was national in scope, involving coordination between the Southern District of Florida and New York, and notes that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was specifically modified to broaden immunity for co-conspirators beyond just Florida. Crucially, it mentions investigators knew Epstein used hidden cameras in his NY home to record sexual encounters and that AUSA Villafana sought to investigate Epstein's assistants in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020767.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021, denying a request by the defendant, Maxwell, for an evidentiary hearing. The Court rules that a hearing is unnecessary because the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in question is clear and in writing, unlike cases involving ambiguous oral agreements. The Court also orders the Government to confirm within one week its disclosure of any evidence that might support Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00002540.jpg
This legal document outlines the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a February 21, 2019, court ruling that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) violated victims' rights, the OPR's review examined government conduct, collected extensive records, and conducted over 60 interviews. The investigation identified five subjects, including former U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their roles in the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and related decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
This document is page 15 (labeled 20 of 51 in the header) of a legal appellate brief filed on November 1, 2024. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) covering the 2001-2007 period should have prevented the USAO-SDNY from charging the Appellant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) for conduct between 2001-2004. The text cites legal precedents (*Annabi*, *Alessi*, *Papa*) regarding whether plea agreements bind other US Attorney Offices and argues the Appellant was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021835.jpg
This is page 11 of a legal filing from November 2024 (Case 22-1426) arguing against a Second Circuit Court decision (U.S. v. Maxwell). The text contends that the court unfairly applied the 'Annabi' precedent to allow the SDNY to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit. The document highlights that witnesses told the OPR the agreement was intended to provide 'transactional immunity' to co-conspirators, yet Maxwell was denied discovery or a hearing on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021759.jpg
This legal filing argues that the District Court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Ms. Maxwell. The author contends the court ignored key evidence from the OPR and improperly applied a rule of construction, ultimately failing to resolve ambiguities in the agreement in favor of Ms. Maxwell as required by law. The document cites precedent from the Second Circuit to support the necessity of such a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021758.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intentionally drafted to provide immunity beyond the Southern District of Florida, evidenced by the removal of limiting language and its replacement with 'United States.' It also refutes the Government's claim that 'Main Justice' was not involved, citing OPR records showing Andrew C. Lourie (Deputy Assistant Attorney General) actively participated in negotiations from Washington, D.C. in September 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
This document is page 27 of a legal filing (dated June 29, 2023) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the District Court (Judge Nathan) correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss without a hearing because the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida were clear and did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. A footnote clarifies that even if the NPA applied, it would only cover specific counts (Count Six) and not others (Counts Three and Four) involving different victims and time periods.
DOJ-OGR-00021492.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, states that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) received information from or about 13 victims. This information pertained to their contacts with the FBI and USAO, and notifications they received about the federal investigation, Epstein's state plea, and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before it was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021491.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice report detailing the sources of information for an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR gathered records from U.S. Attorney's Offices in Florida and Georgia, as well as public records from Florida law enforcement agencies. The investigation also involved extensive interviews with subjects, and over 60 witnesses, including former high-ranking DOJ officials like Mark Filip and Alice Fisher, and communications with attorneys for Epstein's victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021490.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into a significant gap in the email records of an individual named Acosta, specifically from May 2007 to April 2008. The investigation, which was related to the Epstein case, involved questioning witnesses and analyzing data from multiple U.S. Attorney's Offices, the FBI, and other Justice Department divisions. OPR concluded that the email gap was most likely due to a technological error rather than an intentional act to conceal evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021488.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while the failure to notify victims about the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct (citing strategic concerns about impeachment evidence), the lack of transparency and inconsistent messaging mistreated victims and damaged public confidence. The report states that victims were not treated with the sensitivity expected by the Department of Justice, leading to perceptions of collusion between the government and Epstein's counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the conduct of Alexander Acosta and the USAO regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) due to legal ambiguities at the time, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing. The report also details how an FBI administrative employee sent misleading form letters to victims stating the case was still 'under investigation' without proper coordination with prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021486.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report evaluating U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR concludes that while Acosta did not commit professional misconduct or act on corruption, his decision to resolve the investigation via a state-based plea constituted 'poor judgment' and relied on a 'flawed mechanism.' The report notes Acosta failed to consider the difficulties of relying on state officials and agreed to 'unusual and problematic terms' in the NPA.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity