Villafaña
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Acosta
|
Business associate |
22
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Business associate |
22
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Business associate |
14
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
37 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Subordinate supervisor |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Oosterbaan
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial prosecutor defendant |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Subordinate supervisor |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Reiter
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Prosecutor defendant |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Edwards
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Supervisor subordinate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alex Acosta
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Black
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter concerning Epstein's plea deal, incl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lourie informed Villafaña that Acosta did not want to pursue a Rule 11(c) plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate sexual offender requirement (weekend prior to Monday de... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations regarding Epstein's case | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation and management of Epstein's case suffered from absence of ownership and communicati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Early meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel where Villafaña raised victim consultation issue a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations for Mr. Epstein's plea agreement. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña circulates the defense's proposed plea agreement to supervisors. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lourie forwarded an email with suggestions (Alex's changes) to Villafaña, instructing her to inco... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña sent a revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz and advised him about the controlling NPA if... | N/A | View |
| 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 | N/A | Villafaña reacted to the resolution of Epstein's case by writing to her supervisor, expressing di... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Decision-making process regarding a state-based resolution and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel arguing against victim notification letters | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Drafting of victim notification letters | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Decision to resolve case through guilty plea in state court | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Federal investigation of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victim notification process regarding Epstein's case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña notified Black that USAO opposed transfer of supervision to U.S. Virgin Islands. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña passed violation information to Palm Beach County probation office. | Palm Beach County | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña's OPR interview where she stated Epstein's cooperation rumor was false. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York regarding Epstein's cooperation. | Eastern District of New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Villafaña and FBI case agent observed plea hearing from courtroom gallery. | Courtroom gallery | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein facing substantial sentence under federal sentencing guidelines, estimated by Villafaña a... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021315.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts in November 2008 regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. Prosecutor Villafaña argued Epstein's 12-hour-a-day release to the 'Florida Science Foundation' breached his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) requiring 24-hour confinement, prompting her to ask superiors if she could indict him. Concurrently, USAO official Alex Acosta recused himself from the case due to employment discussions with Epstein's defense firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
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-00021311.jpg
This document details Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in a Palm Beach County state court on June 30, 2008. It outlines last-minute negotiations and changes to his plea agreement regarding the wording of his sentence and clarifies the detention facility. The document also includes the specific criminal charges read in court and a colloquy where the prosecutor, Ms. Belohlavek, confirmed to the judge that there were 'several' victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021310.jpg
This document details events in late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, where federal authorities concluded their review and declined to intervene further. Subsequently, federal prosecutor Villafaña discovered the proposed state plea agreement's sentencing terms appeared to violate the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by not requiring Epstein to be confined in the county jail, leading her to suspect foul play.
DOJ-OGR-00021308.jpg
This legal document details communications from May 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, where his defense team, including Starr and Whitley, petitioned the Deputy Attorney General for a review. They argued the federal prosecution was unwarranted, irregular, and politically motivated due to Epstein's "close personal association" with former President Bill Clinton. In response, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General instructed the U.S. Attorney's Office to postpone a June 2, 2008 plea deadline pending the completion of this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
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-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021303.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal Department review between February and June 2008 regarding the Epstein case. It highlights that while Epstein's defense sought a broad review of misconduct and NPA terms, the DOJ only reviewed federal jurisdiction issues. The document also records a 'stand down' order where Oosterbaan instructed a CEOS attorney to cease involvement, and details the formal notification sent by the USAO to the Civil Rights Division classifying the case as 'child prostitution' rather than a matter of 'national interest.'
DOJ-OGR-00021302.jpg
This legal document details how prosecutor Acosta, responding to the defense's desire for a 'fresh face', engaged the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) to review the evidence in the Epstein case. CEOS attorney Villafaña traveled to Florida, interviewed victims, and reported back to Acosta and Sloman on the victims' severe trauma and their desire for significant jail time for Epstein rather than restitution. The document also notes the CEOS Trial Attorney's assessment to OPR that the victim witnesses presented numerous challenges for a potential prosecution.
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-00021299.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021294.jpg
This legal document details the delays in Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in late 2007, caused by a new strategy from his legal team to appeal to senior Department of Justice officials to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It chronicles communications between the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's attorneys, including Kenneth Starr and Jack Goldberger, regarding scheduling conflicts and Epstein's compliance with the agreement. Ultimately, these efforts delayed the plea hearing by months, with a final date set for January 4, 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00021293.jpg
This document page describes communications and actions taken in late October 2007 related to a non-prosecution agreement. It details an email from Acosta expressing frustration with negotiations, Sloman's subsequent communication with opposing counsel Lefkowitz that led to an agreement, and the signing of an addendum by Epstein's attorneys. The document also includes an email exchange between prosecutors Villafaña and Sloman discussing the propriety of selecting a private attorney for victims versus a Special Master, and Sloman reassuring Villafaña in the face of criticism from defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
This document describes the conflicting accounts surrounding a breakfast meeting between prosecutor Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz. A letter from Lefkowitz claims Acosta promised the USAO would not interfere with Epstein's state-level plea deal, a claim Acosta's office refuted in an unsent draft letter calling it "inaccurate." The text also details Acosta's later, differing recollections of the meeting and contrasts them with media reports that a secret deal was struck at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00021289.jpg
This page of a DOJ report details negotiations in October 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Lefkowitz argued strongly against federal agents or the USAO contacting victims about the settlement, citing confidentiality and grand jury rules. The document chronicles the scheduling of a breakfast meeting between US Attorney Acosta and Lefkowitz in West Palm Beach on October 12, 2007, while prosecutor Villafaña was on sick leave.
DOJ-OGR-00021288.jpg
This document details the legal wrangling in October 2007 regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights the friction between government attorneys (Villafaña, Sloman) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz, Sanchez) over the interpretation of victim compensation procedures (§ 2255) and the role of a special master. Notably, Villafaña expresses frustration with the defense's attempts to limit victim lawsuits, at one point asking her supervisor, "Can I please just indict him?"
DOJ-OGR-00021287.jpg
This document details the conflicts that arose immediately following the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), focusing on the September-October 2007 period. The central issue was the selection of an attorney representative for the victims, where AUSA Villafaña's choice, Lefkowitz, was challenged by her colleague Sloman due to a potential conflict of interest, as Lefkowitz was recommended by an AUSA Villafaña was dating.
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.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021282.jpg
This legal document details communications from Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, specifically Sanchez and Lefkowitz, to prosecutors Acosta and Lourie on September 22-23, 2007. The defense vehemently argues against a sexual offender registration requirement, claiming it was based on a 'misunderstanding' from a September 12 meeting where they were allegedly told by prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek that the charge was not registrable. The document contains excerpts from emails where the defense calls the registration a 'life sentence' and pleads for reconsideration.
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.
Possibility of serving as attorney representative.
Villafaña exchanged messages with the attorney (Lefkowitz) about the possibility of him taking on the role of victims' representative.
Guidance on informing victims
Villafaña asked Lefkowitz for a call to get guidance, stating she was meeting with agents and wanted to give them 'marching orders' on what to tell the victims ('girls').
Informing victims about NPA
Requested guidance on informing victims about the NPA, stating she was meeting with agents to give 'marching orders'.
Disclosure of NPA details
Acosta responded to Villafaña's email by agreeing to set up a call to discuss who to tell and how much. OPR was unable to determine if call took place.
Response to confidentiality request
Villafaña responded to Lefkowitz's request, stating she had forwarded the message only to Alex, Andy, and the West Palm Beach manager, and didn't anticipate it going further. She mentioned that one copy would be signed and returned to Lefkowitz, and another placed in the case file, kept confidential due to identifying information about the girls.
Re: Confidentiality of NPA
Villafaña responded that she had only forwarded the message to a limited group and that the agreement would be kept confidential in the case file.
NPA disclosure
Stated plan to discuss what she can tell attorney representative and victims about agreement, assured Lefkowitz that Chief Reiter is being told not to disclose outcome.
Victim representation
Informed manager that she planned to meet with victims to explain relief system once attorney representative was appointed.
NPA
Forwarded Lefkowitz's email, stated no intention to do anything with it except put it in the case file.
NPA
Asked Villafaña to prevent the NPA from becoming public.
Victim notification requirements
Sloman told Villafaña that pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification.
Final version of the NPA
On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafaña circulated the new 'final' version of the NPA and asked Lefkowitz to send the signed agreement.
Consulting with victims before NPA
Villafaña recalled raising the issue of consulting victims; supervisors claimed no recollection.
Revised NPA
Villafaña sent a new revision of the NPA, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz.
Confidentiality request
Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to '[p]lease do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public.'
Informing victims and attorney representative
Villafaña told Lefkowitz she planned to discuss what could be told to the victims and their attorney representative, assured him Chief Reiter was being told not to disclose the outcome, and provided a list of potential candidates for the representative position.
Transmittal of signed NPA
Lefkowitz electronically transmitted a copy of the NPA signed by Epstein to Villafaña.
Circulation of 'final' NPA
Villafaña circulated the new 'final' version of the NPA and asked Lefkowitz to send the signed agreement.
New revision of NPA
Villafaña sent a new revision of the NPA, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz.
Plan to meet with victims
Villafaña informed the manager that once an attorney representative was appointed, she planned to meet with the victims ('girls') to explain the system for obtaining relief.
Instruction to restore reference
Acosta instructed Villafaña to restore a reference to Epstein's wish 'to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities.'
Forward of Lefkowitz's email
Villafaña forwarded Lefkowitz's email, stating she only intended to put the NPA in the case file. This prompted a discussion with Acosta and Lourie about disclosure obligations.
[s]mall edits to "final" NPA
Acosta sent 'small edits' to the final NPA, including language changes regarding Epstein's guilty plea and sentencing. He expressed discomfort with requiring the State Attorney to enter a joint sentencing recommendation or the State court to stick to a timeline. He substituted language requiring Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing recommendation and use 'best efforts' for plea and sentencing.
Epstein's 'gain time' in prison
Later that afternoon, Villafaña emailed Krischer asking about 'gain time' and expressing her desire to include a provision in the NPA to ensure Epstein served a minimum number of days in jail.
Conversation with Lefkowitz
Villafaña alerted Lourie that she had spoken with Lefkowitz, who was "waffling" about Epstein pleading to a state charge requiring sexual offender registration.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity