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-00021278.jpg
This legal document details a critical point in the plea negotiations for Jeffrey Epstein around September 20, 2007. It shows Epstein's defense team rejecting a federal plea agreement to pursue a "state-only" deal, primarily to avoid the federal sexual offender registration requirement. The document captures the internal communications among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta, and State Attorney Barry Krischer, as they react to the defense's shift in strategy and establish a hard deadline for filing charges.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021273.jpg
This legal document details a critical point in plea negotiations for Mr. Epstein. After prosecutor Lourie believed he had reached an agreement with defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz submitted a revised proposal with substantially different terms, including a shorter sentence and protections for Epstein's assistants. This new proposal caused frustration among the prosecutors and was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021272.jpg
This legal document from a court filing details plea negotiations concerning Jeffrey Epstein on September 18, 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña rejected a proposal from Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, for a 12-month sentence, insisting the U.S. Attorney required at least 18 months. The document includes a detailed email from Villafaña to her colleagues outlining the stalled negotiations and subsequent discussions with Lefkowitz about an alternative plea structure involving two separate charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021270.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the plea negotiations between prosecutor Villafaña and Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz. It outlines the strategy to structure state and federal sentencing to manipulate jurisdiction for prison purposes without alerting the judge. It also explains Villafaña's justification for the non-prosecution agreement covering co-conspirators, stating that the USAO viewed Epstein as the priority and wished to avoid highlighting uncharged conduct to the court.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021268.jpg
This legal document details plea negotiations in September 2007 between prosecutor Villafaña and Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz. It outlines the development of a 'hybrid' plea agreement involving federal and state charges, a proposed 18-month sentence, and a victim's fund. The document also reveals significant internal dissent among Villafaña's colleagues, particularly Lourie and Acosta, who criticized a proposed assault charge as weak and suggested finding an alternative.
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-00021263.jpg
This document details the intensification of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case during September 2007. It describes the prosecution, led by Acosta and Villafaña, engaging with Epstein's defense counsel, Gerald Lefcourt, over the terms of a plea deal. The focus of the negotiations shifted to the length of imprisonment, with the USAO moving from a two-year minimum to considering an 18-month sentence, while the defense pushed for a sentence involving home confinement.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
This legal document details communications among prosecutors Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. The prosecutors debated strategy concerning defense counsel's efforts to delay litigation and prevent the government from obtaining computer evidence. Ultimately, Acosta decided to meet with the defense, postponing investigative steps and deadlines, believing it was better to keep the matter within the USAO rather than letting it escalate to the main Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021259.jpg
This document details events from August-September 2007 in the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on U.S. Attorney Acosta's decision to meet with Epstein's newly hired, high-profile attorneys, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals internal tensions, with the FBI pushing for federal prosecution, while Acosta strategized with his colleague Sloman to manage the new defense team and prevent them from escalating procedural complaints to Washington D.C. The document also notes Acosta's prior professional relationship with Starr and Lefkowitz from his time at their law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021254.jpg
This legal document describes a meeting on July 31, 2007, between the USAO and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team to discuss a plea deal. The USAO presented a proposal that included a federal sentencing range of 188 to 235 months, while Epstein's attorneys argued for alternatives like home confinement, citing safety concerns in prison. Prosecutor Villafaña later expressed concerns to the OPR that the defense team could 'manipulate' a state-level sentence and that the USAO would be 'giving up all control.'
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflict and confusion regarding the decision to offer Jeffrey Epstein a plea deal with only a two-year prison term. It highlights Prosecutor Villafaña's shock at the decision, noting she felt it violated sentencing guidelines and that she had not been consulted. The document confirms that U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ultimately made the decision for the two-year term, despite conflicting recollections from supervisors Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie regarding how and when this was communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00021247.jpg
This document excerpt details the defense's ongoing efforts in July 2007 to halt a federal investigation into Epstein and prevent the government from obtaining computer equipment, including sending letters to the USAO. Concurrently, CEOS endorsed Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan finding the defense's arguments unpersuasive and offering CEOS's assistance for the prosecution. The document also references a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the removal of computer equipment from Epstein's home.
DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg
This legal document details internal conflict within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of Epstein. It describes prosecutor Villafaña's unsuccessful attempt to meet with her superior, Acosta, a contentious email exchange with her colleague Menchel that was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and her efforts to obtain computer evidence from Epstein's home. The document highlights disagreements on strategy and procedure among the prosecutors handling the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021242.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that quotes a lengthy email from an individual named Menchel to a recipient identified in a footnote as Sloman. In the email, Menchel severely criticizes Sloman for acting without authorization in the investigation of Mr. Epstein, specifically for preparing an indictment memo and misleading agents. Menchel also clarifies that his own conversation with Lilly Sanchez about the case was an informal exploratory discussion, not a formal plea offer, and was conducted with the full knowledge of the US Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021241.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a report (likely by the OPR) detailing internal conflicts within the prosecution team regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It features a contentious email from prosecutor Villafaña to supervisor Menchel, accusing him of undermining the case, violating the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights, and showing weakness by offering a plea with no federal conviction. The text also includes Menchel's justification to OPR, stating that while he understood Villafaña's anxiety to file charges, her tone was disrespectful to U.S. Attorney Acosta, who sought a more 'dispassionate' approach.
DOJ-OGR-00021240.jpg
This legal document details a disagreement between prosecutors Menchel and Villafaña in July 2007 regarding a proposed state plea deal to resolve a federal investigation into Epstein. Menchel, asserting the decision was ultimately made by Alex Acosta, defended the state plea, while Villafaña argued it was contrary to Department of Justice policy, did not reflect the gravity of the offense, and went against the wishes of victims she had consulted.
DOJ-OGR-00021239.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility) reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. It details Alexander Acosta's justification for the non-prosecution agreement, citing the difficulty of federal trafficking prosecutions at the time (2006-2007) and a preference for state resolution. The document also discusses the legal strategy regarding Rule 11(c) binding pleas and the interaction between federal and state prosecutors, noting the State Attorney's Office desire for 'political cover'.
DOJ-OGR-00021237.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal conflicts and decision-making process regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal in mid-2007. It highlights prosecutor Villafaña's concerns about unauthorized communications between her superiors (Menchel/Lourie) and Epstein's defense team, specifically regarding a state-based plea deal. The text outlines U.S. Attorney Acosta's reasoning for pursuing a state resolution rather than federal charges, citing concerns about victim testimony and legal issues, despite believing the victims' accounts. Footnotes clarify the specifics of the Ashcroft Memo and disputes between Acosta and Sloman regarding who was involved in the decision-making.
DOJ-OGR-00021236.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the decision to resolve a federal investigation against Epstein with a state plea deal. It details the rationale behind the decision, citing concerns about the case's viability and state jurisdiction, and specifically recounts communications from June and July 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and Epstein's defense team regarding the proposed state resolution.
Preliminary discussions with Sanchez
Email recounting Menchel's preliminary discussions with Sanchez, mentioning sex offender status.
State-based resolution in Epstein case
Menchel discussed his conversation with Sanchez about a state-based resolution, stating it was made with Acosta's 'full knowledge.' The defense had previously rejected the idea as a 'non-starter'.
Response to extension request
Villafaña responded to Sanchez that she 'would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible' but eventually agreed to an extension.
No Subject
Identifying 'the statutes under consideration'.
No Subject
Transmitting addendum to prosecution memo; reported identification of another Jane Doe; discussed charging strategies.
Disagreement with meeting defense
Expressing strong disagreement with meeting Lefcourt; arguing this is a prison case, not probation; concern over strategy disclosure.
Disagreement with meeting defense counsel
Villafaña drafted an email to Jeff (Sloman) and Matt (Menchel) voicing her strong disagreement with meeting Epstein's attorneys, arguing it was not a typical case for negotiation and that it risked disclosing prosecution strategy.
Seeking direction on next steps for indictment
Villafaña emailed Sloman and Menchel asking for a 'sense of the direction' regarding approval of an indictment, a complaint for negotiations, or a different indictment.
Seeking direction on indictment
Villafaña emailed Sloman and Menchel asking for a sense of direction on the case, presenting options like approving the current indictment draft, filing a complaint for negotiations, or a different indictment. Sloman replied, "Taken care of."
Direction on the case involving Alex Acosta
Villafaña emailed Sloman suggesting that 'pestering Alex [Acosta] will not do any good' and asked for confirmation.
Direction on the case involving Alex Acosta
Villafaña emailed Sloman stating it seemed that pestering Alex [Acosta] would not be productive and asked if she was correct. Sloman replied "Yes."
Response to request to charge
Denied approval to go forward tomorrow; explained Acosta was out of town and reviewing the memo.
Epstein travel
Informed that Epstein was flying to NJ from Virgin Islands and asked to file charges the next day.
Indictment Strategy
Discussing strategy to scare Epstein's attorneys by including unknown victims in the first indictment and holding back those with impeachment issues (MySpace/prior testimony) for a superseding indictment.
Proposed Indictment of Jeffrey Epstein
82-page memo supporting a 60-count indictment for federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors.
Prosecution Memorandum
82-page memo supporting a proposed 60-count indictment charging Epstein with federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors.
CVRA Rights
Villafaña sent a letter to Wild in June 2007 inaccurately stating she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights.
Not specified, related to the Epstein investigation.
A table of contents entry indicates email exchanges occurred between Villafaña and Menchel in July 2007.
CVRA Rights
Villafaña sent a letter to Wild in June 2007 inaccurately stating she was a federal victim entitled to CVRA rights.
Objection to meeting with defense
Two days after Lourie agreed to the meeting, Villafaña alerted him that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents and objected to the meeting.
Substantive case update
Villafaña sent a lengthy, substantive email about the case to her entire supervisory chain.
Victim notification
Indicating she sent victim notification letters to 'all of the girls'
Victim notification letters
Villafaña e-mailed supervisors indicating that she sent victim notification letters to "all of the girls".
Briefing on the Epstein investigation
Villafaña met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami to inform them about the Epstein case, her concerns about his influence, and that the PBPD had identified victims.
Federal interests in the Epstein case
Villafaña told OPR about several aspects of the Epstein case that implicated federal interests, including use of interstate commerce for victimization, the number of victims, potential child pornography, and improper political pressure on the state case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity