Department
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
HSA
|
Professional oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
sheriff's office
|
Reporting |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Recused |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
TOR
|
Assigned |
1
|
1 |
| 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-00021487.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the conduct of Alexander Acosta and the USAO regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) due to legal ambiguities at the time, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing. The report also details how an FBI administrative employee sent misleading form letters to victims stating the case was still 'under investigation' without proper coordination with prosecutors.
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-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.
DOJ-OGR-00021462.jpg
This legal document details an OPR investigation into the failure to consult with victims before signing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It presents conflicting recollections from key figures like Acosta and Villafaña regarding the decision-making process. OPR concluded that while the failure to consult did not constitute professional misconduct under the CVRA standards at the time, it was a criticism-worthy failure to treat victims with fairness and respect.
DOJ-OGR-00021459.jpg
This legal document analyzes the ambiguity of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) concerning when victims' rights attach, particularly before formal charges are filed. It notes that at the time of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, court precedent was sparse and divided, a situation that continued as of the writing of this report. Because the law was not clear, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the prosecutors' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021447.jpg
This legal document details a court case involving a petitioner, Ms. Wild, and the U.S. government concerning the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals initially denied Wild's petition, but was highly critical of the government's lack of transparency and 'active misrepresentation'. The court later vacated its own opinion and granted a rehearing en banc, with a new oral argument scheduled.
DOJ-OGR-00021433.jpg
This document outlines the internal DOJ communications in June 2008 regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement and the handling of victim notifications. It details how prosecutor Villafaña was instructed by superiors Alex Acosta and Jeff Sloman to avoid direct victim notification, instead delegating that task to PBPD Chief Reiter. The text also confirms that the Deputy Attorney General had deemed federal prosecution appropriate just days before the plea deal deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00021427.jpg
This legal document details the actions of prosecutor Villafaña between February and April 2008 regarding the case against Epstein. Villafaña actively revised the prosecution strategy, sought pro bono legal counsel to protect victims from harassment by Epstein's defense team, and urged her supervisors for a swift resolution, highlighting the severe emotional toll on the victims. The document also includes Villafaña's justification to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for her statements to victims about the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021421.jpg
This legal document details the FBI's efforts in January 2008 to re-establish contact with victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case by sending standardized notification letters. FBI agent Villafaña expressed concern to her supervisors about losing contact with victims and proposed proactive measures, while also noting that Epstein's defense attorneys were aggressively deposing victims in a related state case. The document highlights the procedural challenges of maintaining victim communication during a complex federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021405.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an investigative report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing interviews about the failure to notify victims before a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was signed. It presents conflicting accounts from key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta regarding the USAO's policy on victim consultation under the CVRA for pre-charge resolutions. The text highlights internal disagreement and confusion over the legal obligations to victims, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan disagreeing with the USAO's stance but not finding it to be an abuse of discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
This legal document details a professional conflict between two government attorneys, Villafaña and Menchel, over plea negotiations in the case of Mr. Epstein. Villafaña accused Menchel, her superior, of violating victims' rights by not consulting them, while Menchel defended his discretionary authority and criticized Villafaña's actions and judgment. The document reveals that on the same day Villafaña criticized Menchel, she herself contacted the defense (Sanchez) about a potential resolution without first speaking to the victims, highlighting the complexities and differing interpretations of prosecutorial obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00021352.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing potential conflicts of interest within the USAO regarding the Epstein case. It details interviews with officials Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta, concluding that personal relationships with defense attorneys did not improperly influence the case. The text highlights Acosta's eventual recusal in late 2008 due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis, and a separate inquiry regarding his potential role at Harvard Law School given Alan Dershowitz's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021351.jpg
This legal document discusses the effectiveness of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, in portraying his case as legally complex to prosecutors like Alex Acosta. It also examines whether preexisting relationships between prosecutors (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta) and defense counsel improperly influenced the outcome, concluding, based on an OPR investigation, that they did not. The document highlights how Epstein's wealth funded a formidable defense that successfully negotiated concessions from the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO).
DOJ-OGR-00021339.jpg
This legal document is a page from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to approve a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein, which included an 18-month state sentence and a provision not to prosecute unidentified 'potential co-conspirators,' did not violate a clear and unambiguous Department policy and therefore did not constitute professional misconduct. The report distinguishes between 'transactional immunity' and 'use immunity' in its analysis of the agreement's terms.
DOJ-OGR-00021337.jpg
This legal document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The OPR concludes that U.S. Attorney Acosta did not violate any clear standards or commit professional misconduct by resolving the federal investigation through the NPA, which required Epstein to plead to state charges. The report affirms that Acosta had the authority to make this decision and that the attorneys involved exercised sufficient competence and diligence.
DOJ-OGR-00021336.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzes the decision by former U.S. Attorney Acosta to use a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to resolve the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that Acosta did not commit misconduct, as there was no clear and unambiguous statute or policy in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) that prohibited the use of an NPA in circumstances like Epstein's, where it was not in exchange for cooperation. The document affirms the broad discretion prosecutors hold in making such decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021319.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, likely filed in relation to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines OPR's analytical framework for determining attorney misconduct, defining specific standards for 'intentional violation,' 'reckless disregard,' 'poor judgment,' and 'mistake'. The text serves as a policy definition chapter rather than a narrative of specific events.
DOJ-OGR-00021315.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts in November 2008 regarding Jeffrey Epstein's work release. Prosecutor Villafaña argued Epstein's 12-hour-a-day release to the 'Florida Science Foundation' breached his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) requiring 24-hour confinement, prompting her to ask superiors if she could indict him. Concurrently, USAO official Alex Acosta recused himself from the case due to employment discussions with Epstein's defense firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021310.jpg
This document details events in late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, where federal authorities concluded their review and declined to intervene further. Subsequently, federal prosecutor Villafaña discovered the proposed state plea agreement's sentencing terms appeared to violate the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by not requiring Epstein to be confined in the county jail, leading her to suspect foul play.
DOJ-OGR-00021305.jpg
This legal document details communications from February and March 2008 between federal prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Oosterbaan) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Lefkowitz, Starr). The central conflict involves the scope of the CEOS section's review of the case, with the defense pushing for broader involvement from senior Department of Justice officials and expressing distrust in prosecutor Drew Oosterbaan. The prosecution team expresses frustration with the defense's tactics and concerns about delays, while internal communications reveal doubts about offering Epstein a plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021295.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing events in late November 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes attempts by Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Lefkowitz) to meet with Assistant Attorney General Fisher to complain about the NPA's civil damages provision and victim notification plans. The text highlights internal DOJ dissent, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan calling the deal 'egregious' and 'advantageous for the defendant,' while Prosecutor Villafaña expressed a desire to indict Epstein due to defense tactics.
DOJ-OGR-00021269.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the 2007 plea negotiations between the US Attorney's Office (Villafaña, Sloman) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz). It highlights a specific email from Villafaña suggesting a Miami venue to minimize press coverage, which was later scrutinized during CVRA litigation. Crucially, it details the defense's counter-proposal to include immunity for four female assistants who facilitated Epstein's crimes, protection from immigration proceedings for two of them, and the withdrawal of legal processes seeking Epstein's computers.
DOJ-OGR-00021260.jpg
This legal document details communications among prosecutors Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. The prosecutors debated strategy concerning defense counsel's efforts to delay litigation and prevent the government from obtaining computer evidence. Ultimately, Acosta decided to meet with the defense, postponing investigative steps and deadlines, believing it was better to keep the matter within the USAO rather than letting it escalate to the main Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021259.jpg
This document details events from August-September 2007 in the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on U.S. Attorney Acosta's decision to meet with Epstein's newly hired, high-profile attorneys, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz. It reveals internal tensions, with the FBI pushing for federal prosecution, while Acosta strategized with his colleague Sloman to manage the new defense team and prevent them from escalating procedural complaints to Washington D.C. The document also notes Acosta's prior professional relationship with Starr and Lefkowitz from his time at their law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.
DOJ-OGR-00021247.jpg
This document excerpt details the defense's ongoing efforts in July 2007 to halt a federal investigation into Epstein and prevent the government from obtaining computer equipment, including sending letters to the USAO. Concurrently, CEOS endorsed Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges, with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan finding the defense's arguments unpersuasive and offering CEOS's assistance for the prosecution. The document also references a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the removal of computer equipment from Epstein's home.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity