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-00021485.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report concerning the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a 2018 Miami Herald article, the OPR investigated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The report identifies five former federal prosecutors, including former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, as subjects of the investigation for their roles in negotiating and executing the controversial deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021484.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report criticizes the USAO and FBI for their lack of coordination and transparency in communicating with victims during the Epstein investigation, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It notes that the failure to inform victims created a public perception of collusion and ignored the victims' rights under the recently passed CVRA. The report highlights contradictory communications sent to victims, including instances where the FBI stated the case was under investigation while the USAO stated it was resolved via a state guilty plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg
This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.
DOJ-OGR-00021480.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report (DOJ-OGR-00021480) analyzing whether Prosecutor Villafaña committed professional misconduct by omitting information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) when speaking with victims and attorney Edwards. OPR concluded that her conduct did not amount to making affirmative false statements, noting that she believed the investigation was ongoing until Epstein's June 2008 state plea and had advocated for charging him. The text cites Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) and related case law regarding candor and omissions.
DOJ-OGR-00021479.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing whether prosecutor Villafaña violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) by failing to disclose the existence of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards. It references specific interviews conducted by Villafaña on January 31 and February 1, 2008, where she allegedly stated the matter was 'under investigation' despite knowing the NPA was signed. The text cites the Eleventh Circuit's concern that the government's actions moved from passive nondisclosure to active misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.
DOJ-OGR-00021477.jpg
This legal document details communications surrounding the federal investigation of Epstein, focusing on the information provided to victims and their attorney, Bradley Edwards. Investigator Villafaña told victims and Edwards that the investigation was active and ongoing, while officials like Sloman and Acosta were concerned that disclosing the terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), including a potential $150,000 payment, would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses in a potential trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021476.jpg
This document details how prosecutor Villafaña and other federal agents handled communications with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Fearing that knowledge of potential monetary damages could compromise witness credibility, Villafaña deliberately withheld specific details about the NPA from victims during interviews in 2007 and 2008. The text contrasts the official explanation given to victims with the reality of the agreement, as later attested to by victim Courtney Wild.
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-00021472.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing the failure of the USAO (specifically Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman) to coordinate with the State Attorney's Office regarding victim notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 2008 plea hearing. It reveals that despite a draft letter in December 2007 intended to provide a list of victims to the state, no evidence exists that the letter was sent, leaving state prosecutors (Krischer and Belohlavek) unaware of the federal identified victims. A footnote highlights that Epstein's attorneys explicitly asked the USAO not to inform victims of their rights under state charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021471.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing Alexander Acosta for 'poor judgment' during the Jeffrey Epstein case. Specifically, it details how Acosta failed to ensure victims identified in the federal investigation were notified of the state plea hearing, erroneously deferring this responsibility to the State Attorney without communicating that decision or providing the necessary victim information. The report highlights that while not legally required to notify victims of a state hearing, Acosta should have recognized the logistical failures that would result from a lack of coordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021469.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the decision-making process behind the failure to notify victims of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 state plea hearing. It highlights a December 19, 2007 letter where US Attorney Acosta deferred notification responsibility to the State Attorney, citing jurisdiction issues. The text reveals internal conflicts and justifications, including fear that victim notification might cause the plea deal (NPA) to fall apart or lead to victim impeachment.
DOJ-OGR-00021466.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the FBI's use of the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send form letters to victims between 2006 and 2008, which stated the case was 'under investigation.' The report concludes that while technically not false, these letters were misleading because they failed to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) reached in 2007, leading victims (such as CVRA petitioner Wild) to believe a federal prosecution was still actively moving forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021465.jpg
This document details the continued federal investigation into Epstein after the signing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines specific actions taken by prosecutor Villafaña, the FBI, and CEOS between late 2007 and mid-2008, such as interviewing new victims and preparing for trial, to demonstrate that the investigation remained active. The document asserts that communications to victims stating the case was 'currently under investigation' were accurate, despite potentially being misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00021463.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.
DOJ-OGR-00021462.jpg
This legal document details an OPR investigation into the failure to consult with victims before signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It presents conflicting recollections from key figures like Acosta and Villafaña regarding the decision-making process. OPR concluded that while the failure to consult did not constitute professional misconduct under the CVRA standards at the time, it was a criticism-worthy failure to treat victims with fairness and respect.
DOJ-OGR-00021461.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding victim notification prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007. It highlights conflicts where prosecutor Villafaña raised concerns about the legal requirement to consult victims, but was overruled by supervisors Sloman, Menchel, and Acosta, who cited confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) did not apply to pre-charge resolutions. The document also notes Menchel's concern that notifying victims might cause them to exaggerate stories to seek financial damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021459.jpg
This legal document analyzes the ambiguity of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) concerning when victims' rights attach, particularly before formal charges are filed. It notes that at the time of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, court precedent was sparse and divided, a situation that continued as of the writing of this report. Because the law was not clear, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the prosecutors' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021458.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation concludes that prosecutors in the Epstein case did not commit professional misconduct by failing to notify victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The OPR's reasoning is that in 2007, when the non-prosecution agreement was signed, the Department of Justice's interpretation was that CVRA rights only attached after federal charges were filed, a standard which was not met. Although finding no misconduct, the report notes that the lack of consultation with victims reflected poorly on the Department and contradicted its mission.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
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-00021435.jpg
This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity