Villafaña
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Sanchez
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional supervisory |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Investigative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
other supervisors
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Supervisor subordinate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional opposing counsel |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Wild
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Professional Responsibility Officer
|
Professional consultative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
case agent
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Black
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
victims
|
Professional prosecutor affected parties |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alex
|
Professional subordinate superior |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial prosecutor subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CEOS Chief
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AUSA
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional collegial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Official |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's attorneys
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional prosecutor defendant |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00021235.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and a key meeting related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It describes a June 26, 2007, meeting where Epstein's attorneys, led by Dershowitz, argued for the case to be handled by the state, an argument the USAO team found unpersuasive. Despite internal concerns about the strength of certain aspects of the case, the USAO team left the meeting intending to proceed, but the document concludes by noting that in July 2007, Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state plea deal to resolve the federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021233.jpg
This page from an OPR report details internal conflicts within the USAO in June 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña urged speed, believing Epstein was still offending, while supervisors Menchel and Lourie preferred to engage with defense counsel, believing Epstein was 'under a microscope' and unlikely to re-offend. The document details the supplementation of the prosecution memo with information on a new Jane Doe and a specific victim who had sexual contact with both Epstein and an assistant, as well as the logistics of setting up a meeting with defense counsel Sanchez.
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions within a prosecutor's office regarding the Epstein case. It outlines the author's opposition to meeting with the defense, led by Lefcourt, arguing it would undermine the prosecution. The document also reveals significant internal conflict, as prosecutor Villafaña expressed fears to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) about the case's direction and was cautioned by her supervisor about insubordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
This legal document details internal disagreements within a U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case, likely against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña pushed for a rapid indictment, citing concerns about ongoing crimes, but her superiors, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, believed she was moving too fast and that more review was necessary. The conflict led to multiple communications seeking direction and was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00021229.jpg
This document outlines internal DOJ deliberations from May 2007 regarding the strategy for charging Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Lourie advocated for a pre-indictment plea to maintain control over the case and avoid judicial scrutiny of dismissed counts, noting that sentencing guidelines suggested a 20-year range. Meanwhile, prosecutor Villafaña urged immediate action when Epstein traveled to New Jersey, but was blocked by Menchel and U.S. Attorney Acosta, who wanted more time to review the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021228.jpg
This document, likely an OPR report, details internal DOJ discussions from May 2007 regarding the prosecution strategy for Jeffrey Epstein. It reveals Prosecutor Lourie's preference for a pre-indictment plea deal to avoid the risk of a judge rejecting the deal after seeing the full scope of Epstein's crimes in an indictment. The document includes an email from Lourie to Marie Villafaña suggesting a strategic indictment using only 'unknown' victims to scare the defense, while holding back victims with potential impeachment issues (referenced as 'myspace pages') for a later superseding indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021227.jpg
This document details internal discussions within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami during May-June 2007 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes how prosecutor Villafaña submitted a memorandum seeking to file charges by May 15, but her managers, including Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, paused the process to conduct a more thorough review, including seeking analysis from the DOJ's CEOS section. The document highlights the tension between the desire to move quickly on the indictment, as pushed by the FBI, and the managers' more cautious approach, which ultimately delayed the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021225.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal deliberations regarding the federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. It describes AUSA Villafaña's 82-page prosecution memorandum dated May 1, 2007, which recommended a 60-count indictment, and the subsequent strategic disagreement by supervisor Lourie, who preferred a narrower strategy focusing on victims with fewer credibility issues. The text also highlights the unusual involvement of the Miami 'front office' in approval decisions typically handled by the West Palm Beach office.
DOJ-OGR-00021221.jpg
This legal document details the early stages of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in July and August 2006. It highlights the internal communication dynamics, showing investigator Villafaña bypassing her immediate supervisor to report directly to a senior management team in Miami, including Sloman and Acosta. The document also reveals the FBI's distrust of the local State Attorney's Office, fearing leaks to Epstein, and describes the initial evidence-gathering efforts, which included flight manifests and victim interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00021218.jpg
This document details the initiation of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in May 2006. AUSA Villafaña opened the case, named "Operation Leap Year," due to federal interests and concerns of improper political influence on the state investigation. On July 14, 2006, Villafaña briefed her superiors, U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Criminal Division Chief Jeffrey Sloman, to ensure their support for the high-profile and contentious case.
DOJ-OGR-00021217.jpg
This legal document details a May 2006 meeting where the lead Palm Beach Police Department detective presented the state's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to FBI and USAO representatives. The detective expressed concerns that pressure from Epstein's attorneys was compromising the state case and that Epstein may have been tipped off about a search warrant. The group discussed potential federal charges based on Epstein's use of a private plane for interstate travel with suspected underage girls, though evidence was not yet firm.
DOJ-OGR-00021212.jpg
This document provides a timeline of key events in the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008. It details the opening of the investigation, meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's counsel, the decision to offer a state-based resolution, and the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline concludes with Epstein's guilty plea in state court, a subsequent legal challenge by a victim (Jane Doe), and the start of Epstein's work release program.
DOJ-OGR-00021198.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of an analysis concerning the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), detailing a timeline of events from 2007-2011 involving victim notifications by the FBI and USAO, subsequent litigation, and an examination of whether officials violated standards by entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without consulting victims. The document focuses on statutory provisions, department policies, and professional conduct rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021197.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, outlining a timeline of events from September 2007 to June 2008 related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It details the actions of the USAO, FBI, defense attorneys, and individuals like Acosta and Villafaña concerning a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), victim notification procedures, and Epstein's eventual state guilty plea on June 30, 2008. The document highlights the complex legal maneuvering and ongoing investigative efforts by both the prosecution and defense during this critical period.
DOJ-OGR-00021196.jpg
This document is a table of contents for a chapter of a legal or investigative report concerning the U.S. Government's handling of the Epstein investigation. It outlines the timeline and topics related to the government's interactions and communications with victims between 2005 and 2008, focusing on the roles of the USAO and FBI. Key events include the interpretation of victim rights laws (CVRA), the process of victim notification, and internal discussions among officials like Villafaña, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about consulting victims before and after a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021191.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, detailing the timeline of plea negotiations in the Jeffrey Epstein case from July to September 2007. It outlines key events, including meetings between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), the FBI, and Epstein's defense team, and chronicles the evolution of the plea agreement terms, such as the reduction of the proposed incarceration period. The document highlights the roles of specific attorneys, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie, in the negotiation process.
DOJ-OGR-00003316.jpg
This document details the conflicting communications and actions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's work release following his June 30, 2008 plea. It reveals that while federal prosecutors (USAO) and Epstein's own attorney indicated he would not get work release, a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official stated he was eligible, and he was ultimately placed in the program without the USAO's knowledge. The document also highlights Epstein's false statements to the court about his employment at the non-existent "Florida Science Foundation."
DOJ-OGR-00003315.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the controversy surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's placement on work release following his guilty plea. It highlights the disconnect between the USAO's expectation of 'continuous confinement' and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office's decision to allow work release, as well as the legal maneuvering by Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz) to secure this privilege. The document establishes that while the USAO threatened to investigate if Epstein received special treatment, State Attorney Krischer confirmed Epstein's technical eligibility for the program.
DOJ-OGR-00003312.jpg
This document details communications from late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It begins with a letter from Roth to Epstein's counsel, Starr and Lefkowitz, confirming that federal prosecution is appropriate, and then shifts to prosecutor Villafaña's efforts to enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña expresses strong suspicion that Epstein's attorneys are misrepresenting the terms of his confinement, telling her he would be in a jail 24/7 while planning for him to be at a less restrictive 'stockade', which she reports to a colleague, Sloman, as a violation of their agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg
This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00003303.jpg
This document details events in early January 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, starting with the postponement of a plea hearing due to issues with the state charge. It describes a meeting where defense attorney Sanchez alleged a media leak by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and pushed for a lenient plea deal, followed by a phone call where Epstein's full legal team reiterated their desire for a 'watered-down resolution'. Amid these negotiations, USAO personnel expressed concern about delays and initiated a full internal review of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003293.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, details the contentious negotiations between federal prosecutors (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in October 2007. It describes the defense's successful request to postpone Epstein's state guilty plea and the prosecution's growing frustration with the defense for revisiting settled issues. The prosecutors also express suspicion that the defense's delay tactics were motivated by a new civil lawsuit filed against Epstein in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00003292.jpg
This document details communications between U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, in late 2007 regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It focuses on a controversial breakfast meeting and subsequent letters where Lefkowitz claimed Acosta promised non-interference by federal authorities, a claim Acosta's office refuted in a draft response as "inaccurate" and tantamount to a "gag order." The text highlights conflicting accounts and the external criticism surrounding Acosta's handling of the case, contrasting his version of events with media reports.
DOJ-OGR-00003283.jpg
This document details discussions among prosecutors regarding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It covers the rationale behind a broad non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators and focuses on communications from September 21, 2007, between prosecutor Villafaña and State Attorney Krischer, who were finalizing Epstein's sentence and confirming that sexual offender registration was a non-negotiable term.
DOJ-OGR-00003282.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the specific negotiations regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights the inclusion of the controversial clause granting immunity to 'any potential co-conspirator,' which AUSA Villafaña added and DOJ official Lourie failed to reject, despite Lourie explicitly rejecting a separate request for an immigration waiver. The document also records Lourie's later admission to OPR that the broad non-prosecution agreement likely stemmed from U.S. Attorney Acosta's reluctance to charge Epstein at all.
Plea hearing notification
Villafaña told Edwards the hearing was 'important' but did not disclose the global resolution.
Epstein case resolution
"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."
Plea options
Conveyed two options Lourie suggested: original proposal with 18-month sentence or state charges plus two federal obstruction charges.
Explanation of plea deal logic
Explained reasoning for non-prosecution of co-conspirators and immigration stance.
Evidence Review
Notified that Robert Senior would review evidence de novo
Sentencing Agreement
Discussing the wording of the sentencing agreement for the judge.
Barry
"Someone really needs to talk to Barry."
Response re: Sanchez conversation
Notified Villafaña he told Sanchez a state plea with jail/sex offender status might satisfy U.S. Attorney, but Sanchez called it a 'non-starter'.
Epstein's compliance
Claiming Epstein had 'specific authorization to walk to work', that the distance was 'less than three miles', and he was in 'total compliance'.
Epstein / Bear Stearns cooperation
Confirming there was 'absolutely no cooperation here or in New York'.
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.
Alex's changes to plea agreement
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.'
Epstein NPA and addendum
At Lourie's request, Villafaña sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan.
Revised NPA
Sent revised NPA; stated they don't plan to ask for immigration proceedings.
NPA Language
Alerted Lourie about 'promises not to prosecute other people' clause; later added defense persistence on immigration waiver.
Response to Immigration Waiver
'No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement.'
Informing Edwards
Villafaña told OPR she did not inform Edwards.
Response to allegations of misconduct
Villafaña responded to Lefkowitz's allegations of misconduct, specifically addressing 'false' allegations that the government had made.
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.
Draft NPA with non-prosecution provision
Villafaña circulated a draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision, describing it as language requested by defense counsel and commenting, "I don't think it hurts us."
Re: Draft NPA terms
Villafaña responded to Lefkowitz, clarifying sentence terms, stating they were 'miles apart' on the § 2255 issue, and reiterating that the office cannot bind Immigration.
Case conduct and authority
A memo or letter from Menchel to Villafaña asserting his authority as Criminal Division Chief, refuting claims he violated policy, stating the US Attorney has ultimate purview, and admonishing Villafaña for disregarding the chain of command.
Status of investigation
Informed him of state court plea, declined to provide additional information; omitted NPA details.
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.
Concerns about Menchel violating victims' rights in plea ...
Villafaña sent an email to Menchel (inferred from his reply) accusing him of violating the CVRA and VRRA by engaging in plea negotiations without informing her, the agents, or the victims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity