Krischer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jack Goldberger
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Belohlavek
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Cooperation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Belohlavek
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Chief Reiter
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's defense team
|
Pressure influence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Belohlavek
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Communicated information |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Communicated with explained to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Chief Reiter
|
Subordinate superior |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Goldberger
|
Collaborated on resolution |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Communicated with |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña and her supervisor engaged in phone and email exchanges with Krischer and Epstein's cou... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Alan Dershowitz met with Krischer and the Assistant State Attorney and made threats. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The State Attorney's Office decided to present the Epstein case to a grand jury. | Florida | View |
| N/A | Recusal | Assistant State Attorney Krischer was recused from the Epstein case due to a conflict of interest... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Meeting | Epstein's counsel, including Alan Dershowitz, met with Assistant State Attorney Krischer, during ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The State Attorney's Office decided to present the Epstein case to a grand jury rather than direc... | State Attorney's Office | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposal for Epstein to serve 15 months. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | State Attorney Krischer informed USAO's West Palm Beach manager that a resolution for Epstein's c... | West Palm Beach (USAO) | View |
| 2007-11-16 | Meeting | Case agents met with Belohlavek and Krischer of the State Attorney's Office to discuss opposing E... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-21 | Negotiation | Negotiations and communications occurred regarding the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-12 | Meeting | A meeting to discuss the draft Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on p... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-12 | N/A | Meeting where 'miscommunication' occurred regarding registrability of solicitation of a minor | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-12 | N/A | Meeting between defense and prosecution | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-12 | N/A | Joint meeting with Krischer / Belohlavek re state plea provision of NPA | Unknown | View |
| 2006-07-01 | N/A | Krischer charged Mr. Epstein with one count of aggravated assault. No mention of underage girls o... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000190.tif
This document discusses the legal proceedings and agreements related to Epstein, detailing how his sentencing was handled and reduced. It highlights Acosta's role in approving the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and references an email exchange between the State Attorney and Villafaña regarding the resolution of the case. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the agreement allowed Epstein to resolve a federal investigation for an 18-month state sentence.
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-00023144.tif
This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.
DOJ-OGR-00023120.tif
This document details communications and events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal and sex offender registration in September 2007. It highlights objections from Sanchez and Lefkowitz to the registration requirement, citing a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting where prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek initially stated the offense was not registrable. The document shows efforts by Epstein's defense to avoid registration and secure an 18-month federal camp sentence.
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-00021418.jpg
This legal document page from April 2021 details events from December 2007 related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), led by Acosta, to defer to the State Attorney's Office on the matter of notifying victims about Epstein's state court proceedings. The text includes a quote from a proposed communication outlining this deference and Acosta's subsequent explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he trusted the state to fulfill its legal obligations to victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications within the USAO and negotiations with Epstein's defense team in December 2007. It highlights the conflict regarding victim notification, with prosecutor Villafaña expressing frustration about a 'Catch 22' situation where she felt unable to notify victims or file federal charges. The text also details draft letters sent to US Attorney Acosta and State Attorney Krischer, and meetings with defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz attempting to limit federal involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021314.jpg
This document details the conflict between federal prosecutors (USAO) and local officials regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. It reveals that Epstein and his lawyer, Jack Goldberger, misled the court about Epstein's employment at the 'Florida Science Foundation,' a shell entity created in November 2007 using Goldberger's office address, despite Epstein claiming in court it had existed for 15 years. The Palm Beach Sheriff's Office placed Epstein on work release in October 2008 without notifying the USAO, contradicting previous assurances.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021301.jpg
This DOJ OPR report excerpt details the breakdown of plea negotiations in early January 2008. Epstein's defense team (Sanchez, Starr, Lefkowitz) pressed US Attorney Acosta and Sloman for a 'watered-down resolution' that involved no jail time and no sex offender registration, threatening 'ugliness in DC' regarding alleged leaks. Prosecutor Villafaña prepared contingency plans to restart the investigation, including interviewing victims in New York and abroad, while Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior conducted a full review of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021279.jpg
This legal document details plea negotiations in the case against Mr. Epstein on and around September 21, 2007. It reveals intense back-and-forth communication between prosecutors (Acosta, Villafaña, Lourie) and defense attorneys (Lefkowitz, Sanchez) over critical terms, including whether Epstein would have to register as a sex offender and the scope of a non-prosecution agreement for his alleged co-conspirators. The document highlights internal prosecution strategies and their dismissive view of some members of Epstein's legal team.
DOJ-OGR-00021266.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal confusion and negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in September 2007. It highlights the lack of clarity on why Epstein's sentence was reduced from 24 to 18 months, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña admitting the reduction happened 'somehow' during the 'flip flop' between state and federal charges. The document also documents Acosta's delegation of negotiation authority and communications between the USAO and Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021217.jpg
This legal document details a May 2006 meeting where the lead Palm Beach Police Department detective presented the state's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to FBI and USAO representatives. The detective expressed concerns that pressure from Epstein's attorneys was compromising the state case and that Epstein may have been tipped off about a search warrant. The group discussed potential federal charges based on Epstein's use of a private plane for interstate travel with suspected underage girls, though evidence was not yet firm.
DOJ-OGR-00021215.jpg
This legal document details the aggressive tactics used by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, including a threat by attorney Alan Dershowitz to 'destroy' witnesses. It also explains the Florida State Attorney's Office's decision to present the case to a grand jury, citing a conflict of interest involving prosecutor Krischer's husband and Epstein's lawyer, Jack Goldberger, as well as the complexities of the case and the victim-witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00003316.jpg
This document details the conflicting communications and actions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's work release following his June 30, 2008 plea. It reveals that while federal prosecutors (USAO) and Epstein's own attorney indicated he would not get work release, a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official stated he was eligible, and he was ultimately placed in the program without the USAO's knowledge. The document also highlights Epstein's false statements to the court about his employment at the non-existent "Florida Science Foundation."
DOJ-OGR-00003303.jpg
This document details events in early January 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, starting with the postponement of a plea hearing due to issues with the state charge. It describes a meeting where defense attorney Sanchez alleged a media leak by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and pushed for a lenient plea deal, followed by a phone call where Epstein's full legal team reiterated their desire for a 'watered-down resolution'. Amid these negotiations, USAO personnel expressed concern about delays and initiated a full internal review of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003283.jpg
This document details discussions among prosecutors regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It covers the rationale behind a broad non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators and focuses on communications from September 21, 2007, between prosecutor Villafaña and State Attorney Krischer, who were finalizing Epstein's sentence and confirming that sexual offender registration was a non-negotiable term.
DOJ-OGR-00003267.jpg
This legal document details recollections from a meeting on September 12, 2007, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Participants, including prosecutors like Lourie and Villafaña and others like Krischer and Belohlavek, discussed the terms of Epstein's plea, specifically whether he would serve an 18-month sentence in a county jail versus a state prison, and which charges he would plead to. The document highlights disagreements and differing memories among the participants regarding the decisions made and the authority to make them.
DOJ-OGR-00003223.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the initial federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in July-August 2006. It highlights the distrust federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman) held toward the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein. It also details the unusual reporting structure where 'Miami' senior management took direct authority, bypassing local supervisors, and notes the FBI's collection of flight manifests and victim testimony despite intimidation tactics by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00003219.jpg
This document details a May 2006 meeting where the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) presented the Epstein case to federal authorities (FBI and USAO/Villafaña) due to concerns that the State Attorney (Krischer) was bowing to pressure from Epstein's legal team. The report outlines obstruction tactics used by Epstein's defense, including hiring PIs to trail police, orchestrating conflicts of interest to remove aggressive prosecutors, and potentially obtaining tips about search warrants. It also discusses the legal strategy for federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423, citing flight logs listing anonymous 'females' as potential evidence of interstate trafficking.
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-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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022176.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' detailing a complex legal battle where Jeffrey Epstein sued attorney Bradley Edwards and Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein. Epstein alleged that Rothstein used litigation against him as 'bait' to lure investors into a Ponzi scheme, while also attempting to discredit a victim (L.M.) by claiming she was a prostitute who changed her story after hiring Edwards. Edwards responded with a motion for summary judgment, arguing Epstein's claims were frivolous and noting that Epstein pleaded the Fifth Amendment dozens of times during depositions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010523.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a book detailing the legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein in July 2006, specifically focusing on the perspective of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter. It describes the grand jury's decision to charge Epstein with a single count of solicitation, omitting charges related to minors, and notes the lack of notification to the police regarding his surrender and release on bail. The text also touches on Reiter's interactions with federal prosecutor Acosta.
Negotiation status
Villafaña alerted Krischer that negotiations were 'not going very well' and that the defense only wanted to plead to state charges.
Handling of the Epstein case
Krischer told OPR about Dershowitz's threats and explained the rationale for taking the case to a grand jury, citing the complexity and the risk of victims being prosecuted for prostitution.
Negotiation status and defense position
Villafaña alerted Krischer that negotiations were 'not going very well' and defense counsel 'changed their minds again,' only wanting to plead to state charges, not concurrent state and federal. She stated if no agreement, she would charge the case on September 25 and not budge.
Epstein's NPA agreement
On the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed Villafaña that Epstein was ready to agree to all terms of the NPA except for sexual offender registration.
Re: Epstein's 'gain time' in prison
Krischer responded to Villafaña's email, stating that Epstein would serve 15 months and that a plea would not prevent him from serving time at 'the stockade'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity