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-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case status
Attorney spoke to Villafaña 2-5 times, was told case was under investigation. Attorney noted no information was received.
Draft NPA
Villafaña sent an email to Lourie about the draft NPA, asking for '[a]ny other thoughts,' but received no further input.
Response to Villafaña's email
Sloman responded to Villafaña, stating that defense counsel had put an 'insidious spin' on her role and reassured her that her work was valued.
Victim notification
Drafted to notify victims identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and invite them to appear.
Prosecution of Epstein's assistants
A prosecution memorandum in which Villafaña urged the prosecution of Epstein's two female assistants.
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.
No Subject
Discussing plea language, resolving liability, and avoiding highlighting other crimes/persons to the judge.
Comments on NPA changes
Villafaña reviewed an email she sent on Sunday with comments on changes to the NPA, stating the office might be more willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others in a non-prosecution agreement, but cannot bind Immigration.
State indictment
Noted the state indictment related to two girls, one included in federal charges, one not.
Origin of the two-year plea deal
Sloman allegedly said Sanchez asked Menchel to 'do her a solid'.
Agreement
Revised plea agreement proposing immunity for four female assistants and withdrawal of legal process for computers.
Victim consultation
Villafaña raised the issue of victim consultation in writing to her supervisors in early September.
Victim consultation
Villafaña raised the issue of victim consultation in writing to her supervisors in early September.
Disagreement with process
Strong objection to plea negotiations that exclude the investigator and agencies, arguing it violates the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights, and weakens the government's position.
Investigation status/concerns
Edwards shared 'information and concerns' and asked 'very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in'. Villafaña responded she could not answer and gave the impression of an 'on-going active investigation'.
Unknown (Response to press coverage)
Recounted a conversation with Sloman suggesting the 2-year deal was a favor from Menchel to Sanchez.
NPA existence
Villafaña explained she did not inform Edwards of the NPA's existence because she didn't know if it was viable or if Epstein's plea would trigger it.
Status of the Epstein investigation
Victims' attorney Bradley Edwards called Villafaña to ask about the stage of the investigation. Villafaña replied that it was an 'on-going active investigation' but could not provide more details.
CVRA Litigation Declaration
Explanation of the rationale for terminating the federal investigation.
Victim communications and prosecutorial discretion
In a 2017 declaration for the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that two petitioners had not communicated their desires to her and that her role was to evaluate the entire situation to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
Epstein's work release eligibility
Villafaña wrote to express the USAO's view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and to highlight inaccuracies in his application, such as his listed employment at the 'Florida Science Foundation'.
Epstein’s participation in the work release program
Villafaña's email outlining her belief that Epstein's lawyers were scheming to get him on work release, citing an incorrect charge in the indictment and misinformation about his housing.
Response to Breach Notice
Acknowledged work release but denied it was a breach of the NPA.
No Subject
Acknowledged Epstein was in work release program but denied breach of NPA, stating NPA did not prohibit work release and provided for same benefits as other inmates.
Notice of Breach
Notifying defense that work release constituted a material breach of the NPA.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity