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-00023090.tif

This document details discussions and drafts surrounding a non-prosecution agreement for Epstein, focusing on victim compensation and the requirement for Epstein to register as a sex offender. It mentions key individuals like Acosta, Menchel, and Villafaña, and highlights changes made to Villafaña's initial draft before presentation to defense counsel. The text also references relevant legal statutes concerning civil remedies for victims of certain crimes and a memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford.

Report excerpt / legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023094.tif

This document details changes made by Menchel to a draft letter by Villafaña regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal, focusing on the shift from a federal plea to a state imprisonment term. It highlights the involvement of several individuals including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie in discussions and decisions surrounding the Rule 11(c) plea, with an email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, suggesting Acosta's ultimate decision to nix the federal plea.

Report excerpt / legal document analysis

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023325.tif

This document is a review of documents obtained by OPR from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), the FBI, and other Department components related to the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. It details the types of records reviewed, including emails, correspondence, and investigative materials, and notes a data gap in Acosta's email records.

Document review

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif

This document discusses issues related to victim communication and transparency surrounding the Epstein case, highlighting how the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was kept secret, leading to victims feeling ignored and public criticism. It criticizes the USAO for not prioritizing victim communications and notes that decisions by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña contributed to these problems, emphasizing the need for more unified and transparent engagement with victims. OPR recognizes inconsistencies in communication between the FBI and USAO and suggests greater oversight in future cases involving multiple Department components.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023315.tif

This document analyzes legal conduct related to the Epstein case, focusing on prosecutor Villafaña's alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards in early 2008. It discusses whether her actions violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) concerning false statements and dishonest conduct, referencing the Eleventh Circuit's findings on the government's handling of victim notifications. The text cites several Florida Bar legal cases to support its analysis of attorney conduct and intent.

Legal analysis / report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023310.tif

This document details the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) findings and criticisms regarding Acosta's handling of victim notification in the Epstein case. It focuses on Acosta's personal involvement in the notification process, his decision to defer responsibility to the State Attorney, and his failure to ensure victims were properly informed of Epstein's state court pleas, despite his staff's efforts. The document highlights the inadequate communication and coordination between the USAO, Acosta, and the State Attorney's Office concerning victim notification.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif

This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.

Report excerpt / legal analysis

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif

This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif

This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif

This document excerpt details discussions among USAO personnel regarding victim notification and consultation prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. Key individuals like Villafaña, Sloman, Acosta, and Menchel debated the necessity of victim involvement, with some believing it was not required or that disclosures would be confidential, while concerns were raised about victims seeking damages from Epstein. The text highlights differing interpretations of CVRA obligations and internal communications leading up to the NPA.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif

This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023276.tif

This document details the process of victim notification following Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement in July-August 2008. AUSA Villafaña played a central role, sending letters to victims, coordinating with the FBI, and proposing language for victim contact, while also addressing disputes over the final victim list with the defense counsel and her supervisors.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023273.tif

This document details events surrounding Epstein's state plea, focusing on victim notification failures and the actions of various legal and investigative parties. It highlights Villafaña's efforts to identify victims and contact their attorneys, and statements from victims (Wild, Jane Doe #2) expressing their lack of awareness regarding the plea's implications for their cases. The document also notes discrepancies in the State Attorney's Office's communication about the case closure and Epstein's sentence.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif

This document excerpt details discussions and concerns surrounding victim notification and the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta provided accounts to OPR regarding the federal plea process, communication between federal and state authorities, and the challenges of victim identification and notification, including a potential $150,000 payment for victims. The text also highlights discrepancies in victim counts and the impact of Epstein's defense team on inter-agency communications.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023268.tif

This document details interactions between prosecutor Villafaña, attorney Edwards, and victims' attorneys concerning the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña provided Edwards with the impression of an ongoing, expansive federal investigation but did not disclose the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or other specific case details, citing prosecutorial challenges and grand jury confidentiality. The document also highlights difficulties victims' attorneys faced in obtaining information from Villafaña and notes a government admission that federal charges and the NPA were discussed between Villafaña and Edwards.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023267.tif

This document discusses the application of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) rights, referencing a federal prosecution related to a 2005 BP oil refinery explosion where victim notification was initially bypassed. It also details how, in June 2008, victims like Wild and Villafaña sought legal representation from Bradley Edwards to understand the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting communications and the role of OPR in investigating such interactions.

Legal document / report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023264.tif

This document details an interview with Villafaña regarding her interactions with victims in a case involving Epstein. It describes her communications about a non-prosecution agreement, the victims' concerns about the legal process and potential exaggeration of claims, and her rationale for not discussing the agreement with some victims. It also includes statements from a CEOS Trial Attorney and an FBI agent about victim notifications and interviews.

Legal document excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023263.tif

This document details FBI interviews of Jeffrey Epstein's victims in early 2008, focusing on victim Wild's willingness to testify and confusion regarding the case's status. It also describes the emotional distress of other victims and communications between officials like Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman regarding victim management and the difficulties of prosecution. The text references contemporary news articles about the case and highlights discrepancies in FBI reporting of victim interviews.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

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

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023254.tif

This document excerpt details legal arguments and communications surrounding victim notification in the Epstein case in late 2007. It highlights disagreements between legal representatives (Starr, Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta, Villafaña) regarding victim status, notification requirements, and the appropriate compensation mechanisms, with a specific focus on an individual referred to as 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein.

Legal document / report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023253.tif

This document details events from December 2007 concerning victim notification letters related to Jeffrey Epstein's case. Villafaña prepared letters for victims but was instructed by Sloman to hold them after the USAO, via Sanchez, requested a delay due to Epstein's upcoming plea hearing and concerns about potential impeachment of victims for monetary compensation. The document also highlights an FBI agent's concern about unnotified victims and the defense's involvement in drafting letters, as well as Villafaña's later contact with an attorney representing a victim known as Jane Doe #2.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023251.tif

This document details communications and disagreements among legal parties regarding victim notification practices and the timing of Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing in late 2007. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Starr, and Fisher are involved in discussions concerning the Justice for All Act, the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the proper procedure for informing victims of the case's developments, including objections from defense counsel and directives from prosecutors.

Report excerpt

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023248.tif

This document is page 210 of a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations and external pressure regarding victim notification in the Epstein case during October 2007. It highlights defense attorney Lefkowitz's aggressive efforts to prevent the government from notifying victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), arguing it would violate confidentiality. It also details an internal ethics consultation where a Professional Responsibility Officer advised prosecutors to stop notifying victims if they were concerned about impeachment material.

Government report (doj/opr)

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023246.tif

This document details the process of informing victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, including differing accounts of those communications. It highlights Villafaña's role in directing victim notifications and the USAO's confidentiality clause. News reports from October 2007 confirm Epstein's plea deal for state charges and the federal agreement to drop its probe, with victim Courtney Wild providing a contrasting recollection of the information she received.

Report excerpt / legal document

2025-11-20

Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023245.tif

This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.

Report excerpt

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

Request for a phone call

From: Villafaña

To: Lourie

Villafaña sent a reply email asking Lourie to call her.

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

Explanation of victim notification process

From: Villafaña

To: OPR

Explained why she created her own template and how letters were delivered.

Interview / statement

N/A

Communication Source

Revised draft plea agreement

From: Jay Lefkowitz

To: Villafaña

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.

N/A

Communication Source

Frustration with revised plea agreement

From: Villafaña

To: Lourie, two other supe...

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.

N/A

Communication Source

Communication between USAO and State Attorney's Office, v...

From: Villafaña

To: OPR

Villafaña noted 'very little' communication and discussed a factual proffer, but did not recall discussing specific victims in the state case.

Statement/interview

N/A

Communication Source

Prevalence of Rule 11(c) pleas

From: Villafaña

To: ["OPR"]

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.

Statement/interview

N/A

Communication Source

Allegations of misconduct against Villafaña

From: Villafaña

To: Lefkowitz

Villafaña sent a letter to Lefkowitz responding to allegations that she had committed misconduct, specifically addressing 'false' allegations.

Letter

N/A

Communication Source

PBPD Chief's alert about Epstein plea

From: Villafaña

To: ["Acosta"]

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.'

N/A

Communication Source

Plea options

From: Villafaña

To: Lefkowitz

Conveyed two options Lourie suggested: original proposal with 18-month sentence or state charges plus two federal obstruction charges.

N/A

Communication Source

Draft plea agreement and NPA for Epstein case

From: Villafaña

To: ["Sloman", "Lourie", "...

Villafaña circulated a draft federal plea agreement and a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to her colleagues.

Document circulation

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

Opening the Epstein case file

From: Villafaña

To: ["Villafaña's immediat...

Villafaña discussed the case with her immediate supervisor, who agreed it was a 'good case' and approved its formal initiation in the USAO's system.

Discussion

N/A

Communication Source

PBPD concerns

From: Villafaña

To: Acosta, Sloman

Informed them that PBPD felt State Attorney succumbed to pressure.

Meeting

N/A

Communication Source

Instruction not to speak to victims

From: Villafaña

To: ["OPR"]

Villafaña was interviewed by OPR, where she claimed she was instructed not to speak to victims during plea negotiations.

Interview

N/A

Communication Source

No Subject

From: Villafaña

To: Lefkowitz

Transmittal email for revised NPA, stated "we have not and don't plan to ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated.

N/A

Communication Source

Case status

From: Villafaña

To: Edwards

Villafaña spoke to Edwards but did not inform him specifically of the signed NPA.

Call

N/A

Communication Source

Concerns regarding potential impeachment evidence

From: Villafaña

To: ["Sloman"]

Villafaña emailed Sloman about her concern that if victims were told about potential monetary damages, it could be used against them in cross-examination.

N/A

Communication Source