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 |
DOJ-OGR-00021206.jpg
This document details the involvement of Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Marie C. Villafaña in the federal investigation of Epstein, which she took over in 2006. It outlines her role in all aspects of the investigation, including negotiating and signing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) under the direction of superiors like Acosta. The text also covers her subsequent role as co-counsel for the USAO in the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) litigation brought by Epstein's victims, a role she held until the office was recused in February 2019, shortly before she left the USAO in August 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021202.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, outlines the organizational structure of federal law enforcement in the Southern District of Florida during a specific period. It identifies key leadership at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and details the jurisdiction, staffing, and office locations of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the region. The text also notes that the FBI's West Palm Beach office handled the 'Epstein investigation'.
DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg
This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00003227.jpg
This document details the internal deliberations within the USAO regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. AUSA Villafaña submitted a comprehensive 82-page prosecution memorandum on May 1, 2007, recommending a 60-count indictment for sex trafficking. Supervisor Lourie acknowledged the thoroughness of the work and supported prosecution, but suggested a strategic shift to focus on victims with the highest credibility, while noting that final approval required Miami 'front office' involvement due to the case's profile.
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004612.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details a technological error that resulted in a gap in U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's emails from May 2007 to April 2008 during a system migration, concluding there was no intentional concealment of evidence. The report also notes that OPR gathered records from the FBI's Palm Beach Office, the Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to reconstruct the timeline and communications.
DOJ-OGR-00004604.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case. It concludes that prosecutors, including Acosta and Sloman, failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not consulting them before the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed and by providing confusing information afterwards. The case of one victim, 'Wild,' is used as a specific example of these failures in communication by government representatives like Villafaña and the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
DOJ-OGR-00023228.jpg
This document is a timeline graphic from a Department of Justice report detailing key events surrounding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) analysis in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It tracks internal DOJ communications, victim notifications, and court actions from 2006 to 2008, with an additional sidebar covering legal developments up to 2020. Key events include the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the deferral of victim notification regarding the plea deal, and subsequent court rulings finding that the U.S. violated the CVRA.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019230.jpg
This document is page 7 of a letter addressed to Honorable Mark Filip, dated May 19, 2008. It details allegations that Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein leaked confidential information regarding the Epstein case and plea negotiations to New York Times reporter Landon Thomas. The text criticizes the U.S. Attorney's Office, specifically First Assistant Sloman and U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their handling of these leaks and the subsequent internal review.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019227.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal memorandum dated May 19, 2008, addressed to Honorable Mark Filip. It argues against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, asserting that his conduct was 'purely local,' 'consensual,' and did not meet the thresholds for federal statutes regarding human trafficking (§ 1591), internet predation (§ 2422), or sex tourism (§ 2423). The text critiques a CEOS review and U.S. Attorney Acosta's potential use of discretion, claiming that federal involvement would be an unprecedented overreach into state jurisdiction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019224.jpg
Attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley write to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip requesting a review of federal involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case, which they characterize as a 'quintessentially state matter.' They criticize a previous 'limited' review conducted by CEOS at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, alleging it ignored professional misconduct by federal prosecutors and failed to assess the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012131.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The firm argues that a previous review of the Epstein case by the DOJ/CEOS was insufficient and requests a true 'de novo' review, citing recent Supreme Court decisions (*Santos* and *Cuellar*) that weaken the federal case. The letter complains that AUSA Villafana has violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement by re-initiating a grand jury investigation and subpoenaing a [redacted] individual to provide testimony and documents (photos, emails, phone records) on July 1, 2008.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025359.jpg
This document is page 7 of a letter to Mark Filip dated May 19, 2008, detailing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein leaking confidential plea negotiation details and prosecution theories to New York Times reporter Landon Thomas, while First Assistant Sloman denied the specificity of these leaks. The text criticizes the USAO for potential political and financial motivations and mentions a review by CEOS regarding U.S. Attorney Acosta's discretion in the prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025356.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal letter addressed to the Honorable Mark Filip, dated May 19, 2008. The text argues against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, claiming his conduct was 'purely local' and did not violate federal statutes regarding human trafficking or sex tourism (§ 1591, § 2422, § 2423). It criticizes a CEOS review that found U.S. Attorney Acosta would not be abusing discretion by prosecuting, arguing that such prosecution would be a 'novel application' of the law and that the matter should be left to Florida state prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025354.jpg
This document is page 2 of a letter dated May 19, 2008, addressed to the Honorable Mark Filip from Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. The letter argues against federal prosecution, citing a review by CEOS (Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section) initiated by Mr. Acosta which found that while prosecution wasn't impossible, it relied on a 'novel application' of federal law. The authors allege that the USAO in Miami is engaging in misconduct, specifically by commingling criminal law with a civil remedy intended to profit specific lawyers, and request a senior-level review by the Justice Department.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025705.jpg
A legal letter dated May 27, 2008, from Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Mark Filip regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The attorneys argue that the prosecution appears politically motivated due to Epstein's friendship with Bill Clinton and claim the USAO would not prosecute a standard 'John' in this manner. They request a review of the case and the tolling of an 'arbitrary' deadline set by prosecutor Mr. Sloman.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012152.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal memorandum from Kirkland & Ellis LLP, acting as defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The text argues against charging Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking), claiming his actions lacked the necessary elements of force, coercion, or recruiting, and characterizing him as a 'local John' rather than a trafficker. The lawyers assert that interactions were consensual and that women initiated contact by calling Epstein's assistant.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012144.jpg
This document is a legal submission from Kirkland & Ellis LLP defending Jeffrey Epstein. It argues that the Florida State Attorney's Office has already investigated and charged Epstein as a 'local John' for soliciting prostitution, and that under the DOJ's 'Petite Policy,' federal prosecution is precluded following state action. The defense minimizes the allegations, asserting the women were over 16, acted voluntarily, and were not 'trolled' at high schools.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012143.jpg
This document is a page from a legal submission by Kirkland & Ellis LLP to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, arguing against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The text asserts that federal statutes are being impermissibly stretched and requests that the case be handled by the State of Florida. In the 'Summary of Facts,' the defense claims Epstein did not personally schedule massages, that sexual activity was limited primarily to self-masturbation, and that underage women systematically lied to Epstein about their age.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012142.jpg
A legal submission by Kirkland & Ellis LLP to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General arguing against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The document characterizes Epstein as a 'successful businessman' and an 'ordinary John,' arguing that his conduct constitutes state-level prostitution offenses rather than federal crimes like sex trafficking. It asserts he did not use interstate commerce (internet/phone) to induce minors and claims the relevant conduct is time-barred under Florida state law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012137.jpg
This document is a letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, Esq., dated June 19, 2008, arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The firm requests a 'de novo' independent review, citing the existence of a Non-Prosecution Agreement and a State plea deal, while accusing AUSA Villafana of misconduct for re-initiating a grand jury investigation and subpoenaing a redacted individual for documents including photos and emails.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012136.jpg
A letter from Kenneth Starr (Kirkland & Ellis) to John Roth (DOJ) dated June 19, 2008, arguing that federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein is unwarranted. Starr outlines four supplemental submissions being sent to the DOJ, which include allegations of misconduct during the federal investigation, a rebuttal to claims by the Miami USAO, and a letter from a former CEOS attorney. The document indicates an aggressive legal defense strategy aimed at preventing federal charges.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity