Filip
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Interviewed by provided information to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subject of review sought relief from |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Deputy Attorney General Filip stated he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Starr's letter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he believed the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein w... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein requested a meeting to argue for relief, which was denied. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Review of Epstein case by Office of Deputy Attorney General (Roth and Filip). | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif
This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00000536.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding transcript dated July 24, 2019, discussing a case involving federal interest and an indictment against Mr. Epstein. Mr. Weinberg, identified as Deputy Attorney General, explains his approval in May or June 2008 for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the federal government's involvement, including urging Florida to bring additional charges against Mr. Epstein. The discussion also touches upon the roles of Mr. Sloman and Mr. Filip within the Department of Justice and the scope of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
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-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
Decision making process
Stated Acosta made decision with Mandelker.
Request for review
Argued federal involvement was unwarranted in a state matter; criticized prosecutor conduct.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity