Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Department

Organization
Mentions
266
Relationships
4
Events
4
Documents
132
Also known as:
Department of Justice, Office of Government Relations Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section New Mexico Public Safety Department New York City Parks Department City’s Public Utilities Department School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department State (Department) Department / DOJ New York Sixth Precinct police department City of West Palm Beach Public Utilities Department Texas Transportation Department Department of Ecology (Washington State) US Department of Education Engineering Department in Cambridge Health and Human Services Department Global Public Affairs (Deutsche Bank department) Fire Department US Department of Treasury Department of Veterans Affairs Planning, Building and Zoning Department Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) Records Department Computer Services Department Public Records Department Department of Commerce US Department of Justice / US Attorney's Office U. S. Department of Justice Missouri Department of Health (MDH) Recreation Department Legal Department (MDC) Palm Beach Department Department of Investigation Charleston County Sheriff Department IT Department DO (Department of Justice) BYU Psychology Department
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.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
4 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
organization HSA
Professional oversight
5
1
View
person sheriff's office
Reporting
5
1
View
organization USAO
Recused
1
1
View
organization TOR
Assigned
1
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2011-01-01 Recusal The Department recused the USAO from all matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual act... N/A View
2010-01-01 Government action Department and Congressional actions were taken regarding the interpretation of the CVRA. N/A View
2008-12-08 N/A Acosta's recusal formally approved by the Department. N/A View
2008-11-26 N/A USAO advised Department of Justice about Acosta's recusal from Epstein-related matters due to pot... N/A View

DOJ-OGR-00000163.tif

This document details legal proceedings related to Jeffrey Epstein. On February 21, 2019, a district court ruled that the government violated the CVRA by failing to inform victims about a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and misleading them about ongoing federal prosecution. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York indicted Epstein on July 2, 2019, for sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors, covering alleged activities from 2002 to 2005.

Legal document / report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015249.tif

This document is a list of academic and professional engagements, likely by a single individual, spanning from 1989 to 1993. It details various conferences, lectures, seminars, and organizational affiliations across numerous universities, legal associations, and psychological societies in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. The entries include the year, event name, and associated institutions or locations.

Academic/professional engagements list
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00022721.tif

This document appears to be an index or a glossary of terms, likely from a legal transcript or report. It lists various words and names along with corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in a larger document. Key terms include 'Dempster', 'Diego', 'Diana', 'Dershowitz', 'Department', and 'District', suggesting a legal context.

Index/glossary of terms or transcript references
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif

This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023189.tif

This document discusses the legal defense strategies employed by Jeffrey Epstein's extensive team of attorneys, highlighting their ability to secure concessions despite initial USAO requirements. It details how prominent lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr influenced prosecutor Alex Acosta, and addresses assertions from individuals like Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie that their relationships with Epstein's counsel did not affect their actions, while noting the significant financial investment in Epstein's defense.

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

DOJ-OGR-00023175.tif

This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details OPR's findings that Acosta's decision to approve a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, resulting in an 18-month sentence, did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards or constitute professional misconduct, despite OPR criticizing certain decisions made during the investigation.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif

This document, an excerpt from an analysis report (Chapter Two, Part Three), discusses the public and media scrutiny following the Miami Herald's November 2018 report on the handling of the Epstein investigation. It focuses on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), allegations of a 'sweetheart deal' by Acosta and the USAO due to improper influences, and OPR's investigation into these matters, concluding that Acosta reviewed and approved the NPA terms and is accountable for it. The report also mentions other individuals (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña) involved in the case.

Report excerpt / analysis
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023153.tif

This document details events in November 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's work release, which USAO official Villafaña believed breached his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Villafaña communicated her concerns to defense attorney Black and other officials, leading to a notice of NPA violation and the recusal of Acosta from the case. The document highlights the ongoing dispute regarding the terms of Epstein's incarceration and the perceived special treatment he received.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023138.tif

This document details efforts by Acosta to revise the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with language concerning monetary damages for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, which was ultimately rejected by the defense. It highlights disagreements and frustrations between prosecutors and defense counsel regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Section 2255 provision, particularly concerning victim notification and Epstein's alleged delays in his guilty plea.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023322.tif

This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the handling of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that former U.S. Attorney Acosta, while not committing professional misconduct, exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a state-based plea, citing his failure to complete investigative steps and agreeing to problematic terms. The report states that Acosta's decision was not found to be based on corruption or Epstein's wealth, status, or associations.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif

This document discusses issues related to victim communication and transparency surrounding the Epstein case, highlighting how the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was kept secret, leading to victims feeling ignored and public criticism. It criticizes the USAO for not prioritizing victim communications and notes that decisions by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña contributed to these problems, emphasizing the need for more unified and transparent engagement with victims. OPR recognizes inconsistencies in communication between the FBI and USAO and suggests greater oversight in future cases involving multiple Department components.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023310.tif

This document details the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) findings and criticisms regarding Acosta's handling of victim notification in the Epstein case. It focuses on Acosta's personal involvement in the notification process, his decision to defer responsibility to the State Attorney, and his failure to ensure victims were properly informed of Epstein's state court pleas, despite his staff's efforts. The document highlights the inadequate communication and coordination between the USAO, Acosta, and the State Attorney's Office concerning victim notification.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif

This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif

This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Report excerpt
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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-00023232.tif

This document outlines victim/witness notification practices by the USAO and FBI during the Epstein investigation, focusing on the application of the 2005 Guidelines. It details the responsibilities of U.S. Attorneys to notify crime victims of case events and decisions, and describes training efforts led by U.S. Attorney Acosta to ensure compliance with these guidelines.

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-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-00000449.jpg

This legal document, dated July 16, 2019, is a filing to Judge Richard M. Berman arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's release on bond. It states that Epstein's brother, Mark, is prepared to secure a release bond exceeding $100 million of his own net worth. The filing also clarifies that the New Mexico Public Safety Department had previously advised Epstein in 2010 that he was not required to register there for his 2008 Florida conviction.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00000275.jpg

This legal document is a filing on behalf of Mr. Epstein, arguing against his pretrial detention in a "Sex Trafficking" case. The defense contends that the alleged offenses are purely local in nature, not federal trafficking, and highlights Epstein's strong ties to the United States, including his family's presence and lack of foreign assets, to portray him as neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. It also references his prior 2008 state guilty plea and sentence for similar conduct to frame the current indictment.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00030366.jpg

This document appears to be Page 13 of a 114-page response to a Public Records Request (No. 17-295) dated July 26, 2017. The content is an excerpt of a legal statute (citing statutes 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084) outlining penalties for failing to register instant message names and mandating that the sheriff's office submit sexual offender information to the department within two working days. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp.

Legal statute / public records request response
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00015786.jpg

This document is page 57 of a staff manual dated February 14, 2005, outlining emergency procedures for Fire and Hurricane Season. It explicitly instructs staff that their priority is to protect 'Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell, their guests, other staff members and yourself,' linking Epstein and Maxwell as the heads of the household. The document provides standard safety protocols for fires (calling 911, evacuation) and hurricane preparation (monitoring weather, securing furniture).

Staff manual / emergency protocol document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00021491.jpg

This document is a page from a Department of Justice report detailing the sources of information for an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR gathered records from U.S. Attorney's Offices in Florida and Georgia, as well as public records from Florida law enforcement agencies. The investigation also involved extensive interviews with subjects, and over 60 witnesses, including former high-ranking DOJ officials like Mark Filip and Alice Fisher, and communications with attorneys for Epstein's victims.

Legal document
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
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

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