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-00003281.jpg
This document, part of a legal case filed in 2021, details communications and negotiations from September 2007 concerning a potential plea deal for Mr. Epstein. It highlights discussions among various legal professionals regarding charges, sexual offender registration, and the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). A key aspect is the USAO's agreement, as part of a draft NPA, not to criminally charge Epstein's female assistants, employees of his corporate entity, and 'potential co-conspirators' in an ongoing federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003272.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's communications and justifications regarding a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Villafaña explains to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) her strategic decisions, including the structuring of state and federal sentences, the rationale for not prosecuting Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, and the handling of immigration matters concerning Epstein's assistants. The text reveals internal government discussions about the controversial plea agreement and the legal reasoning behind its terms.
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-00003266.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations in September 2007 between the USAO (represented by Villafaña, Acosta, and others) and Epstein's defense team. It outlines the drafting of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) proposing a 20-month jail sentence (reducible to 17 months with 'gain time') and notes a critical meeting on September 12 involving the State Attorney's Office to discuss state charges. The text also reveals internal USAO strategy, including preparing a revised indictment in case negotiations failed.
DOJ-OGR-00003257.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in early August 2007. On August 2, Epstein's lawyer, Sanchez, proposed a sentence of home confinement and restitution, arguing a state prison sentence was unacceptable. The following day, the USAO, through a letter drafted by Villafaña, rejected this offer and countered that a two-year term of imprisonment was the minimum acceptable sentence to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003251.jpg
This document details conflicting accounts surrounding a July 26, 2007 meeting concerning a plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein. While Menchel and Acosta provided vague recollections to the OPR, Villafaña claimed she was left “shocked and stunned” by the abrupt decision to offer a two-year sentence, which she described as “random” and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines. The document establishes that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer the two-year term of imprisonment.
DOJ-OGR-00003250.jpg
This document details the internal decision-making process of the USAO in July 2007 regarding the Epstein case, specifically Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a two-year prison term. It highlights a pivotal meeting on July 26, 2007, where supervisor Matthew Menchel ordered prosecutors and FBI agents to halt federal investigative steps because Acosta had decided to offer a 'two-year state deal' instead of federal charges. The text notes that prosecutors were actively preparing a revised indictment and seeking to investigate Epstein's assistants just days before this directive was issued.
DOJ-OGR-00003248.jpg
This document details prosecutor Villafaña's efforts during the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to obtain computer equipment removed from his Palm Beach residence. Believing the equipment contained crucial evidence like surveillance video, Villafaña made formal requests to Epstein's defense counsel, consulted with other Department of Justice sections, and communicated with defense representatives who delayed and ultimately failed to comply with the request.
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg
This legal document from April 2021 details events from May 2007 concerning the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, revealing significant internal disagreement within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Prosecutor Villafaña strongly objected to holding further meetings with Epstein's defense team, led by counsel Lefcourt, fearing it would compromise their strategy, and documented her dissent in a draft email to her supervisors, Matt Menchel and Jeff Sloman. The document highlights the strategic conflicts among prosecutors as they considered how to proceed with the high-profile case.
DOJ-OGR-00003232.jpg
This legal document details internal conflicts within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña was perceived by her managers, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, as rushing to indict, creating tension and disagreement over the case's timeline and direction. The document highlights differing perspectives on the urgency of the case and the decision-making process, as investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg
This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.
DOJ-OGR-00003225.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2006 and early 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt, and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. The defense sought a meeting to "make a pitch," leading to an internal disagreement between prosecutors Villafaña, who opposed the meeting without first receiving documents, and Lourie, who granted the meeting believing it was strategically valuable to hear the defense's theories. Ultimately, a meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, despite Villafaña's objections and her belief that the defense would not provide the requested evidence and would only use the meeting to discredit victims.
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-00003016.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that there was no due process violation regarding the timing of an indictment. The Government contends that the delay was justified because two critical witnesses, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, only came forward to be interviewed in August and September 2019, less than a year before the indictment was sought in June 2020. The document cites legal precedents to support the position that delays caused by witness unavailability are permissible and that prosecutors can wait until an investigation is complete before seeking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004611.jpg
This document outlines the methodology used by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to review documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) and other federal agencies concerning the Epstein investigation. It details the types of records examined, including case files, correspondence, and electronic data from key individuals like Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña. The review uncovered a significant data gap in Acosta's emails, which was partially resolved after the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) discovered and corrected a data association error, recovering over 11,000 emails.
DOJ-OGR-00004606.jpg
This page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizes the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and the FBI for their handling of communications with victims in the Epstein case. The report finds that the decision to keep the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) secret and the delivery of inconsistent messages left victims feeling ignored and undermined public confidence. Decisions by officials Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña are noted as contributing factors to these failures in providing transparent and unified communication.
DOJ-OGR-00004605.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the conduct of federal prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report concludes that while there was no evidence prosecutors intentionally hid the NPA to protect Epstein, they failed to consult victims, leaving victims like Wild feeling misled and mistreated. The text details how Villafaña wished to consult victims but was constrained by management and concerns over creating impeachment evidence, a decision OPR criticizes as lacking consideration for the victims' rights and the fairness of the process.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023077.jpg
This document details prosecutor Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for pursuing a state-level, pre-indictment resolution in the Epstein case. Acosta cited the novelty of trafficking prosecutions at the time, issues with witnesses and evidence, and the belief that a state resolution offered more flexibility than a federal one. The document also includes statements from other legal professionals, Menchel and Villafaña, who described the general aversion of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida to binding plea agreements like Rule 11(c) pleas.
Rule 11(c) Pleas
Stated binding pleas were uncommon in the district.
Notification dialogue
Draft provided to Acosta to open dialogue concerning notification of all victims; OPR found no evidence Acosta sent it.
Explanation of victim notification process
Explained why she created her own template and how letters were delivered.
N/A
Emails exchanged during NPA negotiations.
Gratitude
Letter thanking Villafaña at the conclusion of the case
Status of investigation
Informed him of state court plea, declined to provide additional information; omitted NPA details.
Provision not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators'
Villafaña sent an email stating that she did not believe the provision 'hurts us.' This was the only written discussion OPR found about the term.
Epstein investigation updates
Villafaña directed emails to senior supervisors, at times without copying her immediate supervisor, to update them on the case.
Impeachment concerns
Villafaña raised impeachment concerns; neither advised her concerns were improper.
Plea hearing notification
Villafaña told Edwards the hearing was 'important' but did not disclose the global resolution.
Sentencing Agreement
Discussing the wording of the sentencing agreement for the judge.
Witness Willingness
Villafaña informed her supervisors that victims were willing to tell their stories but might find it harder to do so in front of a jury.
Victim notification of Epstein's June 30, 2008 plea
Villafaña drafted a victim notification letter concerning the plea, which was intended to be sent immediately after the plea occurred. The draft was shared with the defense for comments.
Draft NPA
Villafaña sent an email to Lourie about the draft NPA, asking for '[a]ny other thoughts,' but received no further input.
NPA non-prosecution provision
Villafaña sent an email referencing the non-prosecution provision and observed that it 'doesn't hurt us.' None of the recipients commented.
Victims' reluctance for trial
Villafaña described to OPR that most victims wanted the case resolved via a plea and did not want to testify in court due to privacy concerns.
Concerns about Epstein's confinement terms
Villafaña recounted a conversation with Goldberger, who swore Epstein would be in custody 24/7 but then let it slip he would be at the stockade, not the jail, which Villafaña believed violated the NPA.
Request for a phone call
Villafaña sent a reply email asking Lourie to call her.
Revised draft plea agreement
Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a revised draft plea agreement with terms different from what was discussed with Lourie, including a 16-month sentence and a prohibition on the USAO initiating immigration proceedings against Epstein's assistants.
Frustration with revised plea agreement
Villafaña circulated the defense's revised plea agreement, expressing frustration that the terms were completely different from what was expected and that the defense wanted an improper sentencing calculation.
Prevalence of Rule 11(c) pleas
Villafaña told OPR that Rule 11(c) pleas were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida because judges dislike being told what sentence to impose, and that she had never offered such a plea.
PBPD Chief's alert about Epstein plea
Villafaña emailed about the PBPD Chief alerting the FBI that a news article would report Epstein was pleading to a state charge and that the Chief wanted to know if victims were consulted. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta with the note 'fyi.'
Draft plea agreement and NPA for Epstein case
Villafaña circulated a draft federal plea agreement and a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to her colleagues.
Concerns regarding potential impeachment evidence
Villafaña emailed Sloman about her concern that if victims were told about potential monetary damages, it could be used against them in cross-examination.
Plea proposal for Epstein
Described as happening "Late last night" relative to Villafaña's email, Lefkowitz asked about Epstein pleading to two twelve-month federal charges with half the jail time in home confinement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity