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-00021411.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2007 and 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and counsel for Epstein (Lefkowitz) regarding victim contact and a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). While the FBI continued to investigate and interview new potential victims, the prosecution team decided not to inform victims about the NPA, citing concerns that discussing financial settlements would compromise them as witnesses and create impeachment evidence. The document highlights the internal rationale for limiting victim notification, balancing legal obligations with strategic concerns in the case against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021410.jpg
This document details the complex discussions and objections surrounding victim notification in a legal case, likely involving Epstein, during late 2007. It highlights concerns raised by the FBI and defense attorneys, particularly Lefkowitz, about the implications of direct victim contact, including potential impeachment material, confidentiality breaches, and grand jury secrecy rules. Various parties, including Villafaña, case agents, and the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer, navigated these issues, with Villafaña also raising ethical concerns about 'cold calling' victims under Florida Bar Rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021408.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal handling of victim notifications regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña directed agents to inform victims about the deal without disclosing the full text, citing confidentiality clauses and the belief that victims only needed to know about restitution rights. The text highlights a discrepancy between what agents claim they told victim Courtney Wild in October 2007 versus Wild's 2015 declaration stating she was misled about the federal case being dropped.
DOJ-OGR-00021407.jpg
This document details communications from September 2007 concerning a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Case Agent Villafaña, prosecutors Acosta and Lourie, and defense attorney Lefkowitz discussed how to handle the NPA's disclosure, with a focus on preventing it from becoming public while navigating legal requirements and informing victims. Villafaña also attempted to coordinate the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims and sought guidance on what information could be shared with them and other agents.
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, focusing on the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) failure to notify victims. OPR's Oosterbaan disagreed with the USAO's decision on policy grounds, while USAO's Sloman believed notification was planned for a later date. Ultimately, despite initial plans by case agents to inform victims, Acosta decided to delay notification about the NPA and its monetary provisions until after Epstein's state guilty plea in June 2008, following objections from Epstein's defense counsel and internal concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021405.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an investigative report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing interviews about the failure to notify victims before a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed. It presents conflicting accounts from key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta regarding the USAO's policy on victim consultation under the CVRA for pre-charge resolutions. The text highlights internal disagreement and confusion over the legal obligations to victims, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan disagreeing with the USAO's stance but not finding it to be an abuse of discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
This legal document details a factual dispute investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the Epstein case. Prosecutor Villafaña claimed her supervisors—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—instructed her not to consult with victims about plea negotiations, an instruction they all deny recalling. The document outlines the conflicting testimonies and notes that while OPR could not definitively resolve the disagreement, it found no documentary evidence to support Villafaña's claim of a specific meeting or instruction on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
This legal document details a professional conflict between two government attorneys, Villafaña and Menchel, over plea negotiations in the case of Mr. Epstein. Villafaña accused Menchel, her superior, of violating victims' rights by not consulting them, while Menchel defended his discretionary authority and criticized Villafaña's actions and judgment. The document reveals that on the same day Villafaña criticized Menchel, she herself contacted the defense (Sanchez) about a potential resolution without first speaking to the victims, highlighting the complexities and differing interpretations of prosecutorial obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00021401.jpg
This legal document details investigator Villafaña's account of her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding the resolution of the federal case. Villafaña reported to OPR that victims had varied opinions, with many not wanting to testify or have Epstein prosecuted due to fears about privacy, safety, and public disclosure. Declarations from 2017 by both Villafaña and an FBI case agent corroborate that victims expressed significant concerns and did not uniformly push for prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021400.jpg
This legal document details the methods used by the FBI and USAO to notify victims in the Epstein case between August 2006 and September 2007, prior to the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes how FBI agents hand-delivered letters and pamphlets, the role of the FBI Victim Specialist as a resource, and prosecutor Villafaña's interactions with victims. The document also notes victims' concerns about participating in a federal trial against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021399.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details how prosecutor Villafaña handled victim notification in the Epstein case prior to charges being filed. Villafaña created a custom letter for FBI agents to hand-deliver to victims, outlining their rights under the CVRA, though she claimed this was not intended to formally activate USAO CVRA obligations. The report notes that while Villafaña informed supervisors Lourie and Sloman, the letters were not reviewed by management (including Acosta), who viewed such notifications as routine tasks.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00021387.jpg
This document is page 187 of an OPR report (filed in 2021/2023 court cases) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The report concludes that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by pursuing a state-based resolution and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without adequate consideration or team consultation, allowing Epstein to manipulate the process. It highlights that the decision left victims, the public, and federal agents (FBI and line AUSAs) dissatisfied with the justice achieved.
DOJ-OGR-00021385.jpg
This document details the chaotic final stages of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiations in September 2007, highlighting how the absence of key personnel like Menchel, Lourie, and Sloman led to a lack of clear ownership and fragmented decision-making. The text specifically critiques a broad provision in the agreement not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators,' noting it was accepted with little discussion despite internal concerns, which ultimately precluded the USAO from prosecuting others involved in Epstein's criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021381.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report critiques the plea negotiations between the USAO (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense. It highlights that the 18-month sentence was a reduction from an initial 'non-negotiable' 2-year offer, a decision for which OPR could find no documented justification or legal basis. The report concludes that Acosta viewed the federal case merely as a 'backstop' to state charges, failing to seek a punishment that matched the severity of Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00021380.jpg
This document details an investigation into the origins of a two-year sentence proposal for Jeffrey Epstein, contrasting the differing recollections of prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman with documentary evidence. The record shows no indication that Epstein's team initially proposed the two-year term; in fact, they argued against any federal prosecution just before the offer was made. The document also outlines alternative, harsher sentencing options the U.S. Attorney's Office considered, such as a plea to a federal offense with a much longer sentence or a conspiracy charge, and why those options were ultimately rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021378.jpg
This page from an OPR report critiques the USAO's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically regarding the failure to seize Epstein's computers. It details how prosecutors Sloman and Villafaña postponed litigation to obtain the computers, and how US Attorney Acosta signed the NPA—which effectively ended the pursuit of this critical evidence—despite likely being aware of the ongoing efforts to obtain it. The report argues the USAO gave away significant leverage and potential evidence of crimes without proper consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021375.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The report concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the case with a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before the investigation was complete was 'poor judgment' and prevented the USAO from obtaining significant evidence, such as surveillance footage from the PBPD and cooperation from potential co-conspirators. The document notes that key investigative steps, like interviewing Epstein's assistants, were not taken before the lenient deal was offered.
DOJ-OGR-00021374.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It criticizes the reliance on state procedures for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), noting that the specific state charges selected allowed Epstein to avoid sex offender registration in New Mexico due to age-of-consent laws. It also details that Acosta was aware the Palm Beach Police Department distrusted the State Attorney's Office, yet he proceeded with a plea deal that relied heavily on state authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00021373.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's concerns about federalism led him to craft a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that paradoxically intruded more on state authority and had negative consequences due to the federal team's unfamiliarity with the state court system. This lack of familiarity, a concern raised by fellow prosecutor Villafaña, resulted in unforeseen outcomes like Epstein obtaining work release, which was contrary to the prosecutors' intent.
DOJ-OGR-00021372.jpg
This document is page 172 of a DOJ OPR report (filed in court in 2021 and 2023) criticizing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text details Acosta's justification for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), citing the 'Petite policy' and a desire to avoid stepping on state sovereignty, reasoning the report calls 'flawed and unduly constricted.' The report notes that Acosta admitted the NPA was not an 'appropriate punishment' federally and that Epstein faced 168-210 months under federal guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00021368.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the conflicting recollections of prosecutors Acosta and Lourie regarding a broad provision not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators,' with Lourie suggesting it could have been a message to victims while Acosta focused on Epstein's punishment. OPR concludes the provision was likely intended to protect Epstein's four assistants and other employees, not victims or his influential associates, and that its inclusion was not carefully considered by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00021367.jpg
This legal document details prosecutor Villafaña's statements to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding a non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña explains her rationale for including the provision, her communications with her supervisor Lourie, and her belief at the time that it would only protect Epstein's four female assistants, not any of his influential associates. The document suggests a lack of substantive discussion among prosecutors about the provision's potential implications.
DOJ-OGR-00021366.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that the controversial provision not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" was not the result of improper favoritism by prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. Instead, the report finds the broad language evolved from a narrower defense request during the exchange of drafts and was included with little internal discussion or analysis within the U.S. Attorney's Office.
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