Washington, D.C.

Location
Mentions
692
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
290
Also known as:
Washington Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20515 D.C. DC (Washington, D.C.) 1776 K Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C Washington, D.C., area 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, #65488, Washington, D.C. 20035 Washington, D.C. 20543 655 15th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

EFTA00013855.pdf

A letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis to the US Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida) dated June 19, 2009. The letter seeks to clarify ambiguous provisions within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Paragraph 8 regarding waivers of liability and potential civil claims. Lefkowitz argues that the waiver applies to single violations rather than multiple asserted violations and reserves the right to use statute of limitations defenses.

Legal correspondence / letter
2025-12-25

EFTA00013785.pdf

A 14-page letter from attorney Stephanie D. Thacker to DOJ official John Roth arguing against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Thacker contends the case lacks federal jurisdiction (no interstate travel for illegal purposes, no commercial sex trafficking) and should remain a state matter. She highlights credibility issues with witnesses who admitted to lying about their age and accuses the lead detective of omitting exculpatory evidence in search warrant affidavits.

Legal correspondence / letter from defense counsel to doj
2025-12-25

EFTA00013570.pdf

This document is a legal response filed on August 1, 2008, by victims of Jeffrey Epstein (Jane Doe #1 and #2) against the United States Government. The victims allege violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically that the government entered into a secret Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein in September 2007 without conferring with them and actively misled them into believing a federal investigation was ongoing. The filing requests the court to order the production of the NPA and an FBI interview report, and to schedule a hearing to determine remedies for the violation of the victims' rights.

Legal motion/response
2025-12-25

EFTA00013555.pdf

A formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys, Jay Lefkowitz and Kenneth Starr, dated June 23, 2008. The DOJ states they have reviewed the attorneys' complaints regarding the U.S. Attorney's handling of the Epstein case but decline to intervene, affirming that federal prosecution is appropriate and dismissing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Alex Acosta is copied on the correspondence.

Legal correspondence / government letter
2025-12-25

EFTA00010577.pdf

An email chain from June 27, 2019, involving officials from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The Chief of the SDNY Public Corruption Unit requests a copy of a 'non-public appendix' to the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) containing a list of victims entitled to compensation. The Director of OPR responds, indicating that OPR can assist and referring the matter to the lead counsel on their investigation.

Email chain
2025-12-25

EFTA00009937.pdf

This document is an email chain from August 6, 2020, within the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) and the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR sent a draft report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein matter by the USAO in the Southern District of Florida (2006-2008) to the Acting US Attorney for SDNY. USANYS officials then discussed and approved sharing this report with their internal 'Epstein team' to evaluate its facts and potential implications for the pending case against Ghislaine Maxwell.

Email chain
2025-12-25

EFTA00009229.pdf

This document is a transcript of an interview conducted by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility with R. Alexander Acosta on October 18, 2019. The interview focuses on Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the decision to enter into a non-prosecution agreement in 2007. The transcript details discussions regarding the intake of the case, the assessment of evidence and legal issues including the petite policy, management decisions, and interactions with defense counsel.

Transcript of interview
2025-12-25

DOJ-OGR-00000256.tif

This document is an Affidavit of Service from Wilson-Epes Printing Co., Inc., certifying that on July 28, 2025, three copies of the 'REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI' in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (AKA Sealed Defendant 1) vs. United States of America were served. The service was made to D. John Sauer, Solicitor General for the U.S. Department of Justice, and electronically to two email addresses. The affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before Notary Public Aza Salinder Donner.

Affidavit of service
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00000240.tif

This document is a Certificate of Service for the Supreme Court case No. 24-1073, 'Ghislaine Maxwell, Petitioner v. United States of America,' dated July 14, 2025. It certifies that the 'BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION' was served via email and first-class mail, and includes a note from the Department of Justice requesting fax or email copies of briefs due to mail delays.

Legal document / certificate of service
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00000217.tif

This document is a letter from D. John Sauer, Solicitor General for the U.S. Department of Justice, dated June 6, 2025, to Honorable Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the Supreme Court. It requests an extension until July 14, 2025, for the government to file its response in the case 'Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073,' citing attorney unavailability due to other pressing matters, and notes that the petitioner does not oppose this extension.

Letter/legal filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00000182.tif

This document excerpt details ongoing plea agreement negotiations on September 19, 2007, between Villafaña and Lefkowitz, with Villafaña setting a firm deadline for conclusion. It also describes Lourie's review of a plea agreement draft and his concerns regarding provisions for suspending investigation and legal process by the USAO.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00023122.tif

This document details the finalization and signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. It highlights the edits made by Acosta, including changes to Epstein's plea and sentencing requirements, and communications between various parties like Villafaña, Lourie, and Lefkowitz regarding the agreement's language and confidentiality. The document also notes the USAO's duty to redact protected information before disclosure.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00023118.tif

This document details negotiations and internal communications surrounding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein, focusing on the involvement of Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie. Key points include Villafaña's revised NPA which proposed a 30-month sentence for Epstein and included non-prosecution for co-conspirators, and a dispute with Lourie over the inclusion of an immigration waiver for Epstein's foreign national assistants. The document also touches on the USAO's general stance on immigration issues and the reluctance to charge Epstein's accomplices.

Report/memo excerpt
2025-11-20

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.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20

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.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00015234.jpg

This document is page 23 of a Curriculum Vitae (CV) or bibliography belonging to Elizabeth F. Loftus, identified by the header 'LOFTUS-046'. It lists academic publications from 2002 and 2003, focusing heavily on false memories, eyewitness testimony, and the intersection of psychology and law. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00015234), suggesting it was included in discovery materials or a government report.

Bibliography / curriculum vitae (cv)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00015172.jpg

This document is a claim form for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, dated June 26, 2020. It is signed by 'SM', a legal representative, on behalf of a claimant whose name has been redacted. The form was notarized by Deborah Cuffe in Broward County, Florida on the same day.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021399.jpg

This page from a DOJ OPR report details how prosecutor Villafaña handled victim notification in the Epstein case prior to charges being filed. Villafaña created a custom letter for FBI agents to hand-deliver to victims, outlining their rights under the CVRA, though she claimed this was not intended to formally activate USAO CVRA obligations. The report notes that while Villafaña informed supervisors Lourie and Sloman, the letters were not reviewed by management (including Acosta), who viewed such notifications as routine tasks.

Doj opr (office of professional responsibility) report / legal filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021385.jpg

This document details the chaotic final stages of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiations in September 2007, highlighting how the absence of key personnel like Menchel, Lourie, and Sloman led to a lack of clear ownership and fragmented decision-making. The text specifically critiques a broad provision in the agreement not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators,' noting it was accepted with little discussion despite internal concerns, which ultimately precluded the USAO from prosecuting others involved in Epstein's criminal conduct.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing events in late November 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes attempts by Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Lefkowitz) to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to complain about the NPA's civil damages provision and victim notification plans. The text highlights internal DOJ dissent, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan calling the deal 'egregious' and 'advantageous for the defendant,' while Prosecutor Villafaña expressed a desire to indict Epstein due to defense tactics.

Government report (likely doj office of professional responsibility / opr report)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021284.jpg

This document details the finalization and signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein on September 24, 2007. It describes how Acosta made crucial last-minute edits to the agreement, removing requirements for the state court and State Attorney's Office, and how Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz, transmitted the signed agreement with a request for it to be kept confidential.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021283.jpg

This legal document details the negotiations for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. It shows Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, arguing against certain terms and proposing alternatives to prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. The document includes a direct email from Lefkowitz to Acosta questioning the rejection of a plea deal and concludes with the defense introducing a confidentiality clause into the NPA for the first time.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021275.jpg

This document details the plea agreement negotiations in the Epstein case on September 19, 2007. It outlines the communications between prosecutor Villafaña and defense counsel Lefkowitz, including Villafaña's push to finalize a deal and Lefkowitz's submission of a 'redline' draft with specific terms. The document also reveals the involvement of Villafaña's colleague, Lourie, who reviewed the draft agreement and questioned certain provisions.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021269.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the 2007 plea negotiations between the US Attorney's Office (Villafaña, Sloman) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz). It highlights a specific email from Villafaña suggesting a Miami venue to minimize press coverage, which was later scrutinized during CVRA litigation. Crucially, it details the defense's counter-proposal to include immunity for four female assistants who facilitated Epstein's crimes, protection from immigration proceedings for two of them, and the withdrawal of legal processes seeking Epstein's computers.

Government report (likely doj opr report) filed as court exhibit
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021262.jpg

This legal document details events in the Jeffrey Epstein case from 2007, focusing on the circulation of a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) by USAO attorney Villafaña. It describes a key meeting on September 7, 2007, where Epstein's defense attorneys, including Starr, met with prosecutors, including Acosta, to argue against federal charges. Starr specifically appealed to Acosta by highlighting their shared experience as Senate-confirmed officials.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity