Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Villafaña

Person
Mentions
551
Relationships
267
Events
352
Documents
269
Search

Relationship Network

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
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-00023242.tif

This document details conflicting accounts from prosecutors Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel regarding instructions about consulting victims in the Epstein case. Villafaña claims she was told not to notify victims about plea negotiations, while Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel deny recalling such instructions or discussions. An email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, confirmed the legal requirement for victim consultation, as reminded by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023239.tif

This document details how case agents and an individual named Villafaña solicited victims' opinions on resolving the federal investigation into Epstein. It highlights that victims had varied desires, including some wanting a plea deal, some opposing prosecution, and others wanting jail time, while many expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and the impact of public disclosure on their relationships. The document also notes that Villafaña's records and memory of these interactions were sometimes insufficient for OPR to fully assess the discussions.

Report excerpt / legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023237.tif

This document details Villafaña's process for victim notification in an unspecified case, where she created her own letters and directed FBI agents to deliver them, believing it provided more assistance than legally required. It highlights that these letters were not reviewed by supervisors and that the USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no direct contact with victims in the Epstein matter, despite Villafaña's claim of having shown the letter to a specialist who approved it. The document also touches upon the USAO's lack of standardized victim notification procedures and the context of Epstein-related CVRA litigation in July 2008.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023236.tif

This document excerpt details the victim notification processes during the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on the actions of an individual named Villafaña and the FBI. It highlights discrepancies and lack of uniformity in victim notification, with Villafaña preparing her own introductory letters to victims while the FBI also sent letters, often without Villafaña's direct knowledge or review, prior to Epstein's guilty plea in 2008.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023225.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report analyzing the handling of a case involving Epstein, focusing on decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta. It critiques Acosta's judgment and the flawed decision-making process that led to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate the system to his benefit and left victims and the public questioning justice. The OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in his approach to the case.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023221.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif

This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif

This document analyzes R. Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution, critiquing his use and interpretation of the Petite policy. It details Acosta's reasoning for federal non-intervention, his view on the state's role, and his concessions during an OPR interview that the outcome was not an appropriate punishment. The text also references the Ashcroft Memo and mentions an estimated sentencing range for Epstein by Villafaña.

Report/analysis
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023207.tif

This document details an OPR investigation finding no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a cooperating witness or 'intelligence asset' in federal matters. It concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving a federal investigation against Epstein through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate his sentence conditions and lacked sufficient federal oversight. The document also references media reports and internal discussions concerning rumors of Epstein's cooperation.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif

This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg

This legal document argues against the Petitioners' request to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. It contends that the Petitioners' claims are not ripe for adjudication, citing legal precedent, and asserts that contrary to their claims, they were consulted by the government. Specifically, it states that Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña spoke with Petitioners about Epstein's offenses against them prior to the agreement being signed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021484.jpg

This page from a DOJ OPR report criticizes the USAO and FBI for their lack of coordination and transparency in communicating with victims during the Epstein investigation, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It notes that the failure to inform victims created a public perception of collusion and ignored the victims' rights under the recently passed CVRA. The report highlights contradictory communications sent to victims, including instances where the FBI stated the case was under investigation while the USAO stated it was resolved via a state guilty plea.

Doj office of professional responsibility (opr) report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021483.jpg

This legal document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically the failure of government officials Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman to consult with victims before or after signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR found that while the officials' actions were not intended to protect Epstein, their decision to withhold information from victims—stemming from a concern about creating impeachment evidence for a potential trial—was flawed and negatively impacted the victims' sense of fairness. The document highlights the experience of victim Wild, who felt misled, and notes that a more straightforward approach with victims would have been better practice.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg

This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.

Department of justice office of professional responsibility (opr) report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021480.jpg

This document is an excerpt from an OPR report (DOJ-OGR-00021480) analyzing whether Prosecutor Villafaña committed professional misconduct by omitting information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) when speaking with victims and attorney Edwards. OPR concluded that her conduct did not amount to making affirmative false statements, noting that she believed the investigation was ongoing until Epstein's June 2008 state plea and had advocated for charging him. The text cites Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) and related case law regarding candor and omissions.

Legal report / opr investigation report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021479.jpg

This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing whether prosecutor Villafaña violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) by failing to disclose the existence of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards. It references specific interviews conducted by Villafaña on January 31 and February 1, 2008, where she allegedly stated the matter was 'under investigation' despite knowing the NPA was signed. The text cites the Eleventh Circuit's concern that the government's actions moved from passive nondisclosure to active misrepresentation.

Government report (opr - office of professional responsibility)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg

This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021477.jpg

This legal document details communications surrounding the federal investigation of Epstein, focusing on the information provided to victims and their attorney, Bradley Edwards. Investigator Villafaña told victims and Edwards that the investigation was active and ongoing, while officials like Sloman and Acosta were concerned that disclosing the terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), including a potential $150,000 payment, would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses in a potential trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021476.jpg

This document details how prosecutor Villafaña and other federal agents handled communications with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Fearing that knowledge of potential monetary damages could compromise witness credibility, Villafaña deliberately withheld specific details about the NPA from victims during interviews in 2007 and 2008. The text contrasts the official explanation given to victims with the reality of the agreement, as later attested to by victim Courtney Wild.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021474.jpg

This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the Epstein case, specifically criticizing Alexander Acosta's handling of victim notification. It details how Acosta intervened to stop his staff (Villafaña and Sloman) from implementing their notification plan, instead deferring responsibility to the State Attorney and Chief Reiter without ensuring a proper process was in place. Consequently, many victims were unaware of Epstein's plea hearing and only learned of the outcome through the media or after the fact.

Legal filing / opr report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021471.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing Alexander Acosta for 'poor judgment' during the Jeffrey Epstein case. Specifically, it details how Acosta failed to ensure victims identified in the federal investigation were notified of the state plea hearing, erroneously deferring this responsibility to the State Attorney without communicating that decision or providing the necessary victim information. The report highlights that while not legally required to notify victims of a state hearing, Acosta should have recognized the logistical failures that would result from a lack of coordination.

Department of justice / opr report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021466.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the FBI's use of the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send form letters to victims between 2006 and 2008, which stated the case was 'under investigation.' The report concludes that while technically not false, these letters were misleading because they failed to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) reached in 2007, leading victims (such as CVRA petitioner Wild) to believe a federal prosecution was still actively moving forward.

Department of justice / opr report
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021465.jpg

This document details the continued federal investigation into Epstein after the signing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines specific actions taken by prosecutor Villafaña, the FBI, and CEOS between late 2007 and mid-2008, such as interviewing new victims and preparing for trial, to demonstrate that the investigation remained active. The document asserts that communications to victims stating the case was 'currently under investigation' were accurate, despite potentially being misleading.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021463.jpg

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.

Department of justice office of professional responsibility (opr) report / court exhibit
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
63
Total
354

Notice of Breach

From: Villafaña
To: Black

Notifying defense that work release constituted a material breach of the NPA.

Letter
2008-11-24
Communication Source

Epstein on work release

From: Villafaña
To: Acosta, Sloman, USAO C...

Notified them Epstein was on work release and asked 'Can I indict him now?'

Email
2008-11-01
Communication Source

State Plea

From: Villafaña
To: Edwards

Informed Edwards about state plea but omitted NPA details.

Conversation
2008-08-01
Communication Source

Epstein's NPA compliance and work release

From: Villafaña
To: ["defense attorney Bla...

Villafaña spoke with defense attorney Black about the NPA and work release, and Black assured her he reminded his team about the 18-month jail term.

Conversation
2008-08-01
Communication Source

Concerns regarding potential impeachment evidence

From: Villafaña
To: Sloman

Discussed concern that notifying victims of damages rights would compromise cross-examination.

Email
2008-08-01
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Villafaña
To: Black

Discussed NPA compliance; Black assured her jail time was material.

Call/meeting
2008-08-01
Communication Source

Victim Notification

From: Villafaña
To: 11 Unrepresented Victims

Formal notification of case resolution.

Letter
2008-07-21
Communication Source

Final Notification of Identified Victims

From: Villafaña
To: Goldberger

A final notification sent to Goldberger highlighting the defendant's obligations under the NPA regarding victim lawsuits.

Notification
2008-07-10
Communication Source

Victim Notification

From: Villafaña
To: Counsel

A letter sent on July 9 and 10 informing victims of Epstein's state court plea and the deferral of federal prosecution, and outlining their rights under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.

Letter
2008-07-09
Communication Source

Information from Edwards

From: Villafaña
To: petitioners in the CVR...

Villafaña stated she invited Edwards to provide information, but 'nothing was provided'.

Declaration
2008-07-09
Communication Source

Finalizing victim notification post-plea

From: Villafaña
To: Acosta, Sloman, and ot...

A week after Epstein's plea, Villafaña notified supervisors that Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger, was back in town and that she hoped to finalize the victim list and notification.

Notification
2008-07-07
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Villafaña
To: her supervisor

Discussed work release; official stated Epstein would be placed on work release.

Meeting
2008-07-01
Communication Source

Epstein's State Guilty Pleas

From: Villafaña
To: ["Some Victims' Attorn...

Immediately after Epstein's state guilty pleas, Villafaña notified some of the victims' attorneys.

Notification
2008-06-30
Communication Source

List of victims

From: Villafaña
To: Goldberger

Villafaña met with Goldberger and provided a list of 31 individuals identified as victims to whom the § 2255 provision applied.

Meeting
2008-06-30
Communication Source

Victim list

From: Villafaña
To: Goldberger

A letter from Villafaña to Goldberger which inadvertently left off one individual from the victim list.

Letter
2008-06-30
Communication Source

Notify Victims

From: Villafaña
To: Chief Reiter (PBPD)

Last minute request to notify victims.

Request
2008-06-30
Communication Source

Victim Notification

From: Villafaña
To: Sloman

Villafaña reported that Chief Reiter 'is going to notify victims about the plea'.

Report
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Victim notification for Epstein's plea

From: Villafaña
To: ["Sloman"]

Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter would be notifying victims about the plea. Sloman replied, 'Good.'

Email
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Victim Notification

From: Villafaña
To: Sloman

Informed Sloman that PBPD Chief Reiter 'is going to notify victims about the plea.'

Email
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Re: Victim Notification

From: Sloman
To: Villafaña

Good.

Email reply
2008-06-28
Communication Source

Copy of state plea agreement

From: Villafaña
To: ["Goldberger", "Black"]

Villafaña renewed her request for a copy of the state plea agreement, stating failure to provide it was a breach of the NPA.

Request
2008-06-27
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Villafaña
To: Counsel

Made clear that 18-month incarceration meant 'confinement for twenty-four hours a day'.

Letter
2008-06-27
Communication Source

Proposed Indictment

From: Villafaña
To: Senior

Submitted 'final final' proposed federal indictment of Epstein.

Submission
2008-06-27
Communication Source

Epstein's upcoming state court guilty plea hearing

From: Villafaña
To: ["Edwards"]

Villafaña contacted Edwards to inform him about Epstein's upcoming plea hearing. Their accounts of what was said in this communication differ significantly.

Phone call (implied)
2008-06-27
Communication Source

Copy of state plea agreement

From: Villafaña
To: ["Goldberger", "Black"]

Villafaña renewed her request for a copy of the state plea agreement, stating that failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA.

Request
2008-06-27
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search