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-00021462.jpg
This legal document details an OPR investigation into the failure to consult with victims before signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It presents conflicting recollections from key figures like Acosta and Villafaña regarding the decision-making process. OPR concluded that while the failure to consult did not constitute professional misconduct under the CVRA standards at the time, it was a criticism-worthy failure to treat victims with fairness and respect.
DOJ-OGR-00021461.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding victim notification prior to signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2007. It highlights conflicts where prosecutor Villafaña raised concerns about the legal requirement to consult victims, but was overruled by supervisors Sloman, Menchel, and Acosta, who cited confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) did not apply to pre-charge resolutions. The document also notes Menchel's concern that notifying victims might cause them to exaggerate stories to seek financial damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein case concerning victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Following Epstein's death, a district court denied the victims' (petitioners') motion for remedies, such as rescinding the non-prosecution agreement, deeming the issue moot. The document also covers an appeal by a victim named Wild and the government's legal arguments that its CVRA obligations were not triggered because charges were never filed in the original district.
DOJ-OGR-00021442.jpg
This document discusses legal proceedings and agreements related to Epstein, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and litigation. It mentions the government's intention to provide victims with copies of the NPA and revisions to a letter in response to criticism.
DOJ-OGR-00021441.jpg
This legal document details events from August to September 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on victim notifications. It describes how the Federal Court ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) to disclose the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and their attorneys. The document also discusses the USAO sending a revised notification letter after Epstein's attorneys objected to language in a previous version.
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021439.jpg
This legal document details the actions of government representative Villafaña in July 2008 regarding the implementation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes Villafaña's communications with Epstein's defense team, including Goldberger and Sanchez, to provide an updated victim list and send notification letters to victims. The document highlights the specific legal language used to ensure victims retained their rights to pursue civil damages as if Epstein had been federally convicted.
DOJ-OGR-00021436.jpg
This document describes the events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea in a Florida state court on June 30, 2008, at which no victims were present. It details how federal prosecutors, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, deliberately withheld written victim notifications until after the plea, based on a prior agreement. The text also notes that while subpoenas were issued to some victims, the State's efforts to ensure their participation or notification before the hearing were minimal or ineffective.
DOJ-OGR-00021435.jpg
This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021434.jpg
This legal document details conflicting accounts regarding the notification of victims for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008, state plea hearing. It focuses on communications between prosecutor Villafaña, investigator Reiter, and victim's attorney Edwards, particularly concerning a list of victims that was created and subsequently destroyed. The document highlights discrepancies in recollections from various depositions and declarations about what information was shared and with whom, forming a key part of the CVRA litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021433.jpg
This document outlines the internal DOJ communications in June 2008 regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement and the handling of victim notifications. It details how prosecutor Villafaña was instructed by superiors Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman to avoid direct victim notification, instead delegating that task to PBPD Chief Reiter. The text also confirms that the Deputy Attorney General had deemed federal prosecution appropriate just days before the plea deal deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021427.jpg
This legal document details the actions of prosecutor Villafaña between February and April 2008 regarding the case against Epstein. Villafaña actively revised the prosecution strategy, sought pro bono legal counsel to protect victims from harassment by Epstein's defense team, and urged her supervisors for a swift resolution, highlighting the severe emotional toll on the victims. The document also includes Villafaña's justification to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for her statements to victims about the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021425.jpg
This legal document details the events of January 31, 2008, when CEOS Trial Attorney Villafaña and the FBI interviewed victims of Epstein, including one named Wild. The document highlights the emotional distress of the victims, Wild's stated willingness to testify, and conflicting accounts from prosecutors about whether the victims truly wanted to proceed with the case. It also reveals communication failures, as victims received contradictory information from the FBI about whether the case was resolved or still under investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021421.jpg
This legal document details the FBI's efforts in January 2008 to re-establish contact with victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case by sending standardized notification letters. FBI agent Villafaña expressed concern to her supervisors about losing contact with victims and proposed proactive measures, while also noting that Epstein's defense attorneys were aggressively deposing victims in a related state case. The document highlights the procedural challenges of maintaining victim communication during a complex federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ report (likely OGR) detailing the period between January and June 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes the legal tug-of-war between Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta) regarding victim notification under the CVRA, with the defense arguing federal notification was inappropriate. It also details internal DOJ reviews of the case evidence by senior officials (Senior, Oosterbaan, Mandelker, Fisher) which delayed the plea deal, while prosecutor Villafaña and the FBI continued to investigate potential federal charges in anticipation of an NPA breach.
DOJ-OGR-00021418.jpg
This legal document page from April 2021 details events from December 2007 related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), led by Acosta, to defer to the State Attorney's Office on the matter of notifying victims about Epstein's state court proceedings. The text includes a quote from a proposed communication outlining this deference and Acosta's subsequent explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he trusted the state to fulfill its legal obligations to victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications within the USAO and negotiations with Epstein's defense team in December 2007. It highlights the conflict regarding victim notification, with prosecutor Villafaña expressing frustration about a 'Catch 22' situation where she felt unable to notify victims or file federal charges. The text also details draft letters sent to US Attorney Acosta and State Attorney Krischer, and meetings with defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz attempting to limit federal involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021416.jpg
This document, a legal filing, details disputes and communications from 2007 concerning victim notification and compensation in a federal case related to Epstein. It highlights arguments between legal figures like Lefkowitz, Starr, Acosta, and Villafaña regarding the interpretation of victim rights laws and the handling of specific victims, including 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein. The text reveals concerns about the government's adherence to victim notification requirements and allegations of misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021415.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice OPR report detailing the failure to notify Jeffrey Epstein's victims of his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña prepared notification letters on December 7, 2007, but was ordered by her superior, Sloman, to 'Hold the letter' after Sloman received a request from Epstein's defense attorney (Sanchez) to delay notification. The document highlights internal conflict, with an FBI agent and Villafaña expressing concern and disgust over the delay and defense influence.
DOJ-OGR-00021414.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the prosecution (represented by Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr and Lefkowitz) regarding the government's obligation to notify victims under the VRRA. The prosecution argues for the necessity of informing victims about Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and his upcoming state plea deal, scheduled for December 14, 2007, while the defense objects strongly. The document includes excerpts from letters exchanged between the two sides, outlining their legal positions and the specifics of the proposed plea agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021413.jpg
This legal document details the contentious communications in late November and early December 2007 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The core conflict revolved around the timing, content, and legal necessity of notifying victims about Epstein's upcoming state plea hearing, with the defense arguing for delay and review, and the prosecution asserting its obligations and threatening to void the plea agreement. The dispute involved a series of letters and instructions, highlighting the friction in executing the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00021412.jpg
This legal document details the federal handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case in late 2007, specifically around his state plea hearing. It reveals that federal officials, including Villafaña, did not inform new victims of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because they believed Epstein would still be federally charged. The document also outlines the coordination and communication challenges between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the State Attorney's Office regarding who was responsible for notifying victims for the state court proceedings.
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.
Victim Interviews
Villafaña wrote to Acosta and Sloman after interviewing three victims, describing their emotional distress, their negative reaction to a potential 18-month deal for Epstein, and their desire for justice over financial restitution.
No Subject
Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often information traveled through multiple layers.
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.
Rejection of Lefkowitz's revision
Sloman reported to Villafaña that Lefkowitz's 'suggested revision has been rejected.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
CVRA Litigation Declaration
Explanation of the rationale for terminating the federal investigation.
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.
No Subject
Notified Black that USAO believed Epstein's work release constituted a material breach of the NPA, reminded him of previous emails and letter regarding 18-month incarceration and 24-hour confinement, mentioned Goldberger's omission of 'imprisoned' from plea agreement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity