U.S. Attorney
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-19 | Legal filing | The U.S. Attorney requested that the court approve the government's proposed order of nolle prose... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-24 | Agreement signing | A non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was signed, culminating a state-based resolution of the federal... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Meeting | The USAO met with Epstein's attorneys and offered to end its investigation if Epstein met certain... | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Investigation | OPR investigated allegations that USAO prosecutors improperly resolved a federal investigation in... | Southern District of Florida | View |
EFTA00038265.pdf
An official invitation from the U.S. Department of Justice to victims of Jeffrey Epstein for a meeting at the FBI Miami Field Office on November 12, 2020. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the 2006-2008 federal criminal investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office's interactions with victims, while explicitly excluding discussion of ongoing investigations. The document outlines strict COVID-19 safety protocols, security measures (no devices), and confirms the DOJ would cover travel and lodging expenses for attendees.
EFTA00028444.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 6, 2019, between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Virgin Islands (USVI). They are coordinating the logistics for a search warrant application for Jeffrey Epstein's property on Great St. James island. The emails reveal that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had recently conducted surveillance (flyover) of the island and could assist, and that the New York Times had contacted USA Gretchen Shappert and was sending a reporter to the region.
EFTA00028289.pdf
An email thread from October 2019 in which Daily Beast journalist Pervaiz Shallwani asks government officials to confirm details regarding SDNY meetings with Epstein victims in Florida and New York. The journalist also asks about asset forfeiture and efforts to debunk conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein's suicide. The internal government response characterizes the inquiry as 'pretty dumb' and suggests declining to comment.
EFTA00023920.pdf
This document contains an email chain discussing a Daily Beast article titled 'Federal Prosecutors Are Lining Up Witnesses Against Jeffrey Epstein's Cronies'. The emails criticize attorney Spencer Kuvin for providing inaccurate information in media reports. The article details the ongoing federal investigation into Epstein's accomplices after his suicide, including meetings with victims and discussions about his assets and past legal proceedings, with an emphasis on the continued pursuit of co-conspirators.
EFTA00023059.pdf
This document is the Executive Summary of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report from November 2020 investigating the conduct of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and other prosecutors regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that while Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case via NPA and failing to ensure victims were notified, he did not commit professional misconduct as defined by clear and unambiguous standards. The report details the history of the investigation, the CVRA litigation by victims, and the subsequent fallout leading to Acosta's resignation and Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
EFTA00018870.pdf
This document is an email dated August 27, 2019, containing the full text of a Washington Post article. The article details that investigators found some video footage from the hallway outside Jeffrey Epstein's cell at the MCC to be unusable. It discusses the failures in protocol at the facility (missed checks, lack of roommate), the autopsy findings (neck fractures), and the defense team's dissatisfaction with the suicide ruling.
EFTA00013359.pdf
This document is the Executive Summary of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report from November 2020 investigating the conduct of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and other prosecutors regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that while Acosta exercised "poor judgment" in resolving the case via the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, he and his staff did not commit professional misconduct as defined by DOJ standards. The report details the history of the investigation, the secret negotiations, the subsequent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), and the eventual fallout leading to Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019.
EFTA00011475.pdf
This document is an Executive Summary of a November 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report investigating the 2006-2008 federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. It details the negotiation of the controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) approved by then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta, which allowed Epstein to plead to lesser state charges, and examines the failure of the government to consult with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The report concludes that while Acosta and other attorneys did not commit professional misconduct by definition, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case via the NPA and the government failed to treat victims with necessary forthrightness.
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-00000657.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated September 3, 2019. It captures a dialogue between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Weingarten, regarding the government's motion to dismiss an indictment. Mr. Weingarten clarifies that while his clients want the court to investigate the underlying events, they ultimately support the motion to dismiss the indictment itself.
DOJ-OGR-00000643.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated September 3, 2019, concerning the case against Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). The speaker discusses the government's motion to drop the charges (nolle prosequi), which was filed by the U.S. Attorney on August 19, 2019. The speaker argues for the importance of a public hearing for transparency and notes the inclusion of victims in the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00002366.jpg
This legal document argues that the government violated due process by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose information, which likely impacted a Protective Order. It cites several legal precedents to assert that prosecutors have a duty to seek justice, are presumed to have knowledge of their office's investigations, and must ensure the truthfulness of representations made to a federal judge. The document concludes that the Assistant U.S. Attorney failed in this fundamental duty.
DOJ-OGR-00021245.jpg
This legal document details internal conflict within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of Epstein. It describes prosecutor Villafaña's unsuccessful attempt to meet with her superior, Acosta, a contentious email exchange with her colleague Menchel that was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and her efforts to obtain computer evidence from Epstein's home. The document highlights disagreements on strategy and procedure among the prosecutors handling the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021177.jpg
This executive summary details an investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2007-2008. It outlines the initial investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department, Epstein's indictment, the referral to the FBI, and the subsequent negotiation and signing of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein, which included conditions like pleading guilty to state charges and victim compensation. The OPR investigated whether prosecutors committed misconduct by failing to consult victims or misleading them.
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00005212.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to receive a fair trial has been compromised by extensive negative publicity. The publicity stems from Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 case, the subsequent investigation by the Department of Justice's OPR, and the resignation of Alex Acosta. The document further contends that the trial's location in New York, a venue for other high-profile sex abuse cases involving figures like Andrew Cuomo, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly, contributes to a biased environment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031680.jpg
An email dated December 13, 2018, from 'J' (identified as JEE/Jeffrey Epstein via the footer and email address) to Nicholas Ribis. The content is a copy-paste of a Newsmax/Wall Street Journal report detailing a federal investigation into potential misspending and influence peddling by Donald Trump's inaugural committee. The email includes a standard legal disclaimer asserting the content is the property of 'JEE'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031403.jpg
This document is an email chain dated March 5, 2019, between attorney Lilly Sanchez and a recipient identified as 'J' (jeevacation@gmail.com). The correspondence is marked 'Privileged' with significant redactions in the message bodies. The visible content consists of a pasted Miami Herald article by Julie K. Brown reporting that the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office recused itself from the Jeffrey Epstein case and reassigned it to Atlanta, following scrutiny involving Attorney General nominee William Barr.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023125.jpg
This document is a newspaper clipping from February 2019 detailing former prosecutor Jeffrey Sloman's public defense of Alexander Acosta regarding the lenient 2008 plea deal given to Jeffrey Epstein. Sloman attributes the deal to 'legal impediments' and terrified victims, rather than corruption or pressure from Epstein's high-profile lawyers. The article notes the reopening of a DOJ investigation into the case following the Miami Herald's 'Perversion of Justice' series.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029608.jpg
This document is a page from The Virgin Islands Daily News dated February 22, 2019. The main article reports on a ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, stating that federal prosecutors, including Alexander Acosta, violated federal law by concealing a plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein from his underage victims in 2008. A sidebar article details USVI Governor Albert Bryan Jr.'s trip to Washington D.C. to meet with Trump administration officials.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021750.jpg
This document is an email chain dated March 14, 2019, circulated among Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (including Darren Indyke, Martin Weinberg, Kathy Ruemmler, and Jack Goldberger). The email shares a Miami Herald article by Julie K. Brown detailing how the lead prosecutor in the Epstein case, A. Marie Villafaña, had been previously rebuked by a judge for concealing victim information in a prior sex crime case, and how Alexander Acosta defended her. The document includes a specific section marked as 'Privileged - Redacted'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity