Villafaña

Person

Mentions

551

Relationships

267

Events

352

Documents

269

Relationship Network

Network Depth

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.

267 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
person Acosta	Business associate	22 Very Strong	22	View
person Sloman	Business associate	22 Very Strong	20	View
person Lourie	Business associate	19 Very Strong	21	View
person Menchel	Business associate	14 Very Strong	10	View
person Sloman	Professional	11 Very Strong	28	View
person Acosta	Professional	10 Very Strong	37	View
person Lourie	Professional	10 Very Strong	15	View
person Lefkowitz	Professional	10 Very Strong	5	View
person Menchel	Professional	10 Very Strong	14	View
person Lefkowitz	Professional adversarial	9 Strong	5	View
person Acosta	Subordinate supervisor	9 Strong	5	View
person Oosterbaan	Professional	8 Strong	4	View
person Epstein	Adversarial prosecutor defendant	8 Strong	4	View
person Sloman	Subordinate supervisor	8 Strong	4	View
person Reiter	Professional	7	3	View
person Edwards	Legal representative	7	3	View
person Epstein	Prosecutor defendant	7	3	View
person Edwards	Professional	7	3	View
person Acosta	Supervisor subordinate	6	2	View
person Menchel	Subordinate supervisor	6	2	View
person Alex Acosta	Professional	6	2	View
person OPR	Professional	6	2	View
person Black	Professional	6	2	View
person Epstein	Professional adversarial	6	2	View
person Sanchez	Professional	6	2	View

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-00023242.tif

This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023239.tif

This document details how case agents and an individual named Villafaña solicited victims' opinions on resolving the federal investigation into Epstein. It highlights that victims had varied desires, including some wanting a plea deal, some opposing prosecution, and others wanting jail time, while many expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and the impact of public disclosure on their relationships. The document also notes that Villafaña's records and memory of these interactions were sometimes insufficient for OPR to fully assess the discussions.

Report excerpt / legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

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

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023236.tif

This document excerpt details the victim notification processes during the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on the actions of an individual named Villafaña and the FBI. It highlights discrepancies and lack of uniformity in victim notification, with Villafaña preparing her own introductory letters to victims while the FBI also sent letters, often without Villafaña's direct knowledge or review, prior to Epstein's guilty plea in 2008.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023225.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report analyzing the handling of a case involving Epstein, focusing on decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta. It critiques Acosta's judgment and the flawed decision-making process that led to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate the system to his benefit and left victims and the public questioning justice. The OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in his approach to the case.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif

This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif

This document analyzes R. Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution, critiquing his use and interpretation of the Petite policy. It details Acosta's reasoning for federal non-intervention, his view on the state's role, and his concessions during an OPR interview that the outcome was not an appropriate punishment. The text also references the Ashcroft Memo and mentions an estimated sentencing range for Epstein by Villafaña.

Report/analysis

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023207.tif

This document details an OPR investigation finding no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a cooperating witness or 'intelligence asset' in federal matters. It concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving a federal investigation against Epstein through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate his sentence conditions and lacked sufficient federal oversight. The document also references media reports and internal discussions concerning rumors of Epstein's cooperation.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif

This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg

This legal document argues against the Petitioners' request to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. It contends that the Petitioners' claims are not ripe for adjudication, citing legal precedent, and asserts that contrary to their claims, they were consulted by the government. Specifically, it states that Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña spoke with Petitioners about Epstein's offenses against them prior to the agreement being signed.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021484.jpg

This page from a DOJ OPR report criticizes the USAO and FBI for their lack of coordination and transparency in communicating with victims during the Epstein investigation, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It notes that the failure to inform victims created a public perception of collusion and ignored the victims' rights under the recently passed CVRA. The report highlights contradictory communications sent to victims, including instances where the FBI stated the case was under investigation while the USAO stated it was resolved via a state guilty plea.

Doj office of professional responsibility (opr) report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg

This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg

This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.

Department of justice office of professional responsibility (opr) report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021480.jpg

This document is an excerpt from an OPR report (DOJ-OGR-00021480) analyzing whether Prosecutor Villafaña committed professional misconduct by omitting information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) when speaking with victims and attorney Edwards. OPR concluded that her conduct did not amount to making affirmative false statements, noting that she believed the investigation was ongoing until Epstein's June 2008 state plea and had advocated for charging him. The text cites Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) and related case law regarding candor and omissions.

Legal report / opr investigation report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021479.jpg

This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing whether prosecutor Villafaña violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) by failing to disclose the existence of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards. It references specific interviews conducted by Villafaña on January 31 and February 1, 2008, where she allegedly stated the matter was 'under investigation' despite knowing the NPA was signed. The text cites the Eleventh Circuit's concern that the government's actions moved from passive nondisclosure to active misrepresentation.

Government report (opr - office of professional responsibility)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg

This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021477.jpg

This legal document details communications surrounding the federal investigation of Epstein, focusing on the information provided to victims and their attorney, Bradley Edwards. Investigator Villafaña told victims and Edwards that the investigation was active and ongoing, while officials like Sloman and Acosta were concerned that disclosing the terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), including a potential $150,000 payment, would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses in a potential trial.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021476.jpg

This document details how prosecutor Villafaña and other federal agents handled communications with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Fearing that knowledge of potential monetary damages could compromise witness credibility, Villafaña deliberately withheld specific details about the NPA from victims during interviews in 2007 and 2008. The text contrasts the official explanation given to victims with the reality of the agreement, as later attested to by victim Courtney Wild.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021474.jpg

This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the Epstein case, specifically criticizing Alexander Acosta's handling of victim notification. It details how Acosta intervened to stop his staff (Villafaña and Sloman) from implementing their notification plan, instead deferring responsibility to the State Attorney and Chief Reiter without ensuring a proper process was in place. Consequently, many victims were unaware of Epstein's plea hearing and only learned of the outcome through the media or after the fact.

Legal filing / opr report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021471.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing Alexander Acosta for 'poor judgment' during the Jeffrey Epstein case. Specifically, it details how Acosta failed to ensure victims identified in the federal investigation were notified of the state plea hearing, erroneously deferring this responsibility to the State Attorney without communicating that decision or providing the necessary victim information. The report highlights that while not legally required to notify victims of a state hearing, Acosta should have recognized the logistical failures that would result from a lack of coordination.

Department of justice / opr report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021466.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the FBI's use of the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send form letters to victims between 2006 and 2008, which stated the case was 'under investigation.' The report concludes that while technically not false, these letters were misleading because they failed to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) reached in 2007, leading victims (such as CVRA petitioner Wild) to believe a federal prosecution was still actively moving forward.

Department of justice / opr report

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021465.jpg

This document details the continued federal investigation into Epstein after the signing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines specific actions taken by prosecutor Villafaña, the FBI, and CEOS between late 2007 and mid-2008, such as interviewing new victims and preparing for trial, to demonstrate that the investigation remained active. The document asserts that communications to victims stating the case was 'currently under investigation' were accurate, despite potentially being misleading.

Legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021463.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.

Department of justice office of professional responsibility (opr) report / court exhibit

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

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

291

As Recipient

Total

354

Non-prosecution language

From: Villafaña

To: Lefkowitz

Villafaña's email continued to include language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees.

N/A

Communication Source

Reply to non-prosecution provision draft

From: Lourie

To: Villafaña

Lourie responded to another issue in a reply email.

N/A

Communication Source

Non-prosecution provision draft

From: Villafaña

To: Lourie and another sup...

Villafaña circulated a draft of the non-prosecution provision, stating it was 'some of [defense counsel's] requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people,' and commented, 'I don't think it hurts us.'

N/A

Communication Source

Victim Interviews

From: Villafaña

To: Acosta and Sloman

Requesting their attendance at interviews with victims scheduled for the following day.

N/A

Communication Source

Epstein / Bear Stearns case

From: New York AUSA

To: Villafaña

Stating they had not heard of Epstein and wanted to ask about him, noting they learned he is 'pretty unsavory'.

N/A

Communication Source

Epstein / Bear Stearns case

From: Villafaña

To: Sloman and other super...

Reporting that she spoke with prosecutors from the Bear Stearns case in the Eastern District of New York, who had seen the NY Post article and stated they had never heard of Epstein cooperating with the feds.

N/A

Communication Source

Epstein / Bear Stearns cooperation

From: Villafaña

To: Unknown

Confirming there was 'absolutely no cooperation here or in New York'.

N/A

Communication Source

Epstein's compliance

From: Black

To: Villafaña

Claiming Epstein had 'specific authorization to walk to work', that the distance was 'less than three miles', and he was in 'total compliance'.

Letter

N/A

Communication Source

No Subject

From: Villafaña

To: Sloman, Acosta, Lefkow...

Exchanges reviewed by OPR regarding the Epstein investigation, resolution of the case, and victim notification. Some portions were redacted.

N/A

Communication Source

Epstein case resolution

From: Villafaña

To: Villafaña's immediate ...

"Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him."

Written message (internal)

N/A

Communication Source

Barry

From: Villafaña

To: Sloman

"Someone really needs to talk to Barry."

Quote/urging

N/A

Communication Source

Alex's changes to plea agreement

From: Lourie

To: Villafaña

Lourie forwarded an email (presumably with Acosta's thoughts/changes) to Villafaña, stating 'I think Alex's changes are all good ones. Please try to incorporate his suggestions, change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay.'

Email forwarding / transmittal message

N/A

Communication Source

No Subject

From: Villafaña

To: Acosta

Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often information traveled through multiple layers.

N/A

Communication Source

Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) details and USAO fl...

From: Lefkowitz

To: Villafaña

Lefkowitz emailed Villafaña about a draft NPA with a 20-month jail sentence and 10 months of community control, questioning USAO flexibility on the § 2255 procedure, contrasting it with 18 months jail and 12 months community control.

N/A

Communication Source