CEOS
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Staff
|
Encouraged to support involvement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Acosta
|
Professional bureaucratic |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Provided data to |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | CEOS providing OPR with Outlook data and conducting a check of its shared hard drive for document... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR investigated a gap in Acosta's emails related to the Epstein investigation, questioning Acost... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of the investigation requested by U.S. Attorney Acosta. | USAO | View |
| N/A | N/A | John Roth handled Starr's letter and reviewed materials related to the Epstein matter, limiting h... | N/A | View |
| 2019-04-01 | N/A | Program reviews conducted for the 3rd quarter of FY 2019. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-01 | N/A | The Department's Review of federal jurisdiction issues raised by Epstein's defense. | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2008-05-19 | N/A | CEOS Review | Unknown | View |
| 2008-05-15 | N/A | Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division | DOJ | View |
| 2008-05-01 | N/A | Review of the investigation by CEOS. | Department of Justice | View |
| 2008-03-01 | N/A | Meeting in Washington between the defense team and representatives of the criminal division and C... | Washington | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Investigation | CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein matter. The FBI also interviewed victims during thi... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the matter. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Conclusion of CEOS review. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2007-11-01 | N/A | Communication and review process involving USAO, defense, CEOS, Department's Criminal Division, a... | N/A | View |
EFTA00037398.pdf
Internal FBI email chain from August 1, 2019, establishing a weekly reporting protocol for the Epstein investigation due to its high profile and executive management interest. The email outlines required reporting facets (financial, public corruption, victim interviews) and references a disturbing victim interview conducted the previous day regarding Epstein's behavior with images. It also discusses coordination with SDNY and Child Exploitation units.
EFTA00037273.pdf
This document contains a chain of internal FBI/NYPD Task Force emails from August 2019 establishing protocols for weekly status reports on the Jeffrey Epstein case. The emails outline required reporting categories including Victim Interviews, Financial Analysis, and Public Corruption (PC). A significant email from August 1, 2019, details a recent victim interview where the victim alleged Epstein asked about superimposing adult female heads onto child bodies, which the agent notes is strong evidence for a Child Pornography (CP) affidavit.
EFTA00013989.pdf
This document is a letter from Kenneth Starr to a high-ranking DOJ official arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Starr alleges significant prosecutorial misconduct, including violations of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), leaks to the New York Times, and conflicts of interest within the US Attorney's Office. He claims the prosecution is politically motivated by Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and requests a 'de novo' independent review of the case.
EFTA00013811.pdf
This document is a legal submission by Kirkland & Ellis LLP to the Deputy Attorney General arguing against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in circa 2008. The defense argues that Epstein's conduct amounts to state-level solicitation of prostitution rather than federal sex trafficking or sex tourism, citing recent Supreme Court decisions to advocate for a narrow interpretation of federal statutes. The text asserts that Epstein did not target minors, did not use interstate commerce to lure victims, and that any underage women lied about their age.
EFTA00013801.pdf
This document is a legal rebuttal from Kirkland & Ellis LLP regarding the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The defense argues that the DOJ's review was not independent, alleges prosecutorial misconduct regarding victim notification and the selection of victim representatives (citing a conflict of interest involving an AUSA's boyfriend), and disputes the government's characterization of the sexual conduct. The document also details the defense's objections to the government's threat to terminate the agreement if Epstein did not comply with unilaterally modified terms by June 2, 2008.
EFTA00013661.pdf
An email chain concluding with a formal letter from Jay Lefkowitz (Epstein's attorney) to Alex [Acosta] (US Attorney). Lefkowitz argues against federal prosecution, claiming 'Main Justice' is not directing it and that it would be a 'novel application' of statutes. He cites witness testimony alleging women lied about their ages to Epstein and that the FBI pressured women to identify as victims. He requests a meeting to resolve the matter before a July 8 state court deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif
This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif
This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.
DOJ-OGR-00023141.tif
This document details the Department's review of the Epstein case from February to June 2008, initiated by Epstein's defense attorneys. It highlights internal discussions and notifications within the US justice system, including a February 28, 2008, notification from USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior to the Civil Rights Division regarding an ongoing child exploitation investigation involving Epstein. The notification, prepared by Villafaña and edited by Sloman, assessed the case as not being of "national interest" and anticipated charges under specific U.S. Code sections.
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
This document excerpt details concerns raised by Acosta regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically about challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the defense team's tactics. Acosta's letter expresses frustration over the lack of finality and issues being appealed to Department Headquarters, while also setting a deadline of December 7, 2007, for a decision on the Agreement. It also describes Acosta's discussions with OPR and a subsequent response to Acosta from Starr and Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00023326.tif
This document details findings from an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into email records related to the Epstein case. It covers email migration, an email gap in Acosta's inbox attributed to a technological error, and OPR's efforts to obtain email and calendar data from various Department of Justice entities, including the FBI, Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to reconstruct communications concerning the Epstein 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-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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorneys Weinberg and Rossmiller discuss the history of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Court, specifically referencing a March 2008 meeting in Washington between the defense and the DOJ's Criminal Division/Child Exploitation Unit. The discussion highlights that the defense argued the case lacked interstate elements needed for federal prosecution, and the DOJ subsequently issued a letter in May 2008 endorsing prosecutorial discretion due to the 'unusual' facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that the timing of Epstein's arrest was suspicious relative to a CVRA filing in Florida. He asserts that high-level DOJ officials, specifically Alice Fisher (then Head of the Criminal Division) and Sigal Mandelker (currently Undersecretary of the Treasury), were directly involved in approving the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021490.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into a significant gap in the email records of an individual named Acosta, specifically from May 2007 to April 2008. The investigation, which was related to the Epstein case, involved questioning witnesses and analyzing data from multiple U.S. Attorney's Offices, the FBI, and other Justice Department divisions. OPR concluded that the email gap was most likely due to a technological error rather than an intentional act to conceal evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity