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-00021240.jpg
This legal document details a disagreement between prosecutors Menchel and Villafaña in July 2007 regarding a proposed state plea deal to resolve a federal investigation into Epstein. Menchel, asserting the decision was ultimately made by Alex Acosta, defended the state plea, while Villafaña argued it was contrary to Department of Justice policy, did not reflect the gravity of the offense, and went against the wishes of victims she had consulted.
DOJ-OGR-00021209.jpg
This document details the legal team assembled by Epstein following the opening of a USAO investigation in late 2006. Epstein hired several high-profile attorneys, including former federal prosecutors Guy Lewis and Lilly Ann Sanchez, and later retained Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, who contacted the USAO on his behalf in August 2007. The defense team was further expanded with the addition of attorneys Martin Weinberg and Joe D. Whitley.
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-00021198.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of an analysis concerning the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), detailing a timeline of events from 2007-2011 involving victim notifications by the FBI and USAO, subsequent litigation, and an examination of whether officials violated standards by entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without consulting victims. The document focuses on statutory provisions, department policies, and professional conduct rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021197.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, outlining a timeline of events from September 2007 to June 2008 related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It details the actions of the USAO, FBI, defense attorneys, and individuals like Acosta and Villafaña concerning a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), victim notification procedures, and Epstein's eventual state guilty plea on June 30, 2008. The document highlights the complex legal maneuvering and ongoing investigative efforts by both the prosecution and defense during this critical period.
DOJ-OGR-00021194.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal report, likely by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), concerning the federal investigation of Epstein. The report's findings, as outlined here, conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta and other subjects did not violate any professional standards or policies when they entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. The document also indicates the report found no evidence that the subjects were improperly influenced by corruption or by Epstein's status and wealth.
DOJ-OGR-00021188.jpg
This document is Page 16 (xii) of an OPR report outlining the structure of an investigation into DOJ officials' conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of events from the initial 2005 police complaint through the 2006 federal investigation, the controversial 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and Epstein's 2008 guilty plea and subsequent incarceration ending in 2010. The page establishes that the report will analyze allegations of professional misconduct by five unnamed subjects and review government interactions with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00021187.jpg
This document is an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically its communication with victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, there were significant failures, including misleading letters sent by the FBI and poor judgment by State Attorney Acosta in not ensuring victims were notified of a plea hearing. These actions, combined with a lack of transparency, led to victims feeling ignored and frustrated, created a misimpression of collusion with Epstein's counsel, and ultimately damaged public confidence in the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021186.jpg
This document contains findings from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding Alexander Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. While OPR did not find evidence of corruption or professional misconduct regarding the decision to enter a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), it concluded that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' and relied on a flawed application of federalism principles. Additionally, the report concludes that attorneys did not commit misconduct regarding the lack of victim consultation, citing the interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00021184.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report (filed in court in 2021 and 2023). It outlines the scope of an investigation into DOJ attorneys regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on two issues: the negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the alleged failure to comply with the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Footnotes reveal that in December 2010, allegations were raised that Epstein exerted improper influence over the investigation and that the USAO deceived victims about the existence of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021183.jpg
This document is a page from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning its investigation into the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys in the Epstein case. The OPR outlines the scope and limitations of its investigation, noting it lacks jurisdiction over state officials and that the significant passage of time (approx. 12 years) affected witness recollections. The report's analysis relied heavily on contemporaneous emails and communications from the 2006-2008 period to evaluate the attorneys' actions based on the information available to them at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00031204.jpg
This document is a blank page from a public records request, dated July 26, 2017. It includes a handwritten note 'DRAFT PC - Haley Robson' and is part of a Department of Justice, Office of Government Relations record. The note likely indicates the subject or recipient of a draft document.
DOJ-OGR-00003321.jpg
This document is a page from a report by the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the analytical framework and legal standards OPR uses to determine if a Department attorney has committed 'professional misconduct,' exercised 'poor judgment,' or merely made a 'mistake.' It specifically defines the thresholds for intentional violation and reckless disregard of obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00003248.jpg
This document details prosecutor Villafaña's efforts during the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to obtain computer equipment removed from his Palm Beach residence. Believing the equipment contained crucial evidence like surveillance video, Villafaña made formal requests to Epstein's defense counsel, consulted with other Department of Justice sections, and communicated with defense representatives who delayed and ultimately failed to comply with the request.
DOJ-OGR-00003188.jpg
This document details the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation by Acosta and the USAO. While the report concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct, it determines that his decision to use a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) constituted poor judgment due to flawed applications of federalism and insufficient oversight. Additionally, the document addresses interactions with victims, concluding that attorneys did not violate the CVRA as interpreted at the time, though the lack of consultation is noted.
DOJ-OGR-00003186.jpg
This page from a legal filing details the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into potential misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys. The investigation focuses on two key areas: the negotiation and implementation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) interactions with Epstein's victims, including allegations that the USAO deceived them.
DOJ-OGR-00003185.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning its investigation into the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys in the Epstein case. The report outlines OPR's analytical framework, noting that its investigation occurred roughly 12 years after the original events and focused on professional misconduct based on information known to the attorneys at the time, prior to Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty plea. The investigation was significantly aided by contemporaneous records, such as emails between prosecutors and defense counsel, due to witnesses' faded memories over time.
DOJ-OGR-00004609.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It concludes that while attorneys did not commit professional misconduct regarding the CVRA or victim communications, Alexander Acosta exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing and by providing insufficient oversight during the NPA negotiation process.
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-00005655.jpg
This document is page 2 of the Curriculum Vitae for Lisa Marie Rocchio, Ph.D., filed as an exhibit in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details her clinical, training, consultation, and research experience in psychology from 1990 to 2003, focusing on trauma, youth assessment, and expert witness work in Rhode Island and Connecticut. The document bears a DOJ discovery stamp (DOJ-OGR-00005655).
DOJ-OGR-00023231.jpg
This document page (193) details the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) legal interpretation that rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) formally commence upon the filing of a complaint, as that establishes a 'Federal offense.' It also outlines the 2005 Attorney General Guidelines, which assigned the responsibility of identifying and notifying victims during the 'investigation stage' to the FBI Special Agent in Charge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019418.jpg
The document is a news digest containing two articles. The first discusses the boom in U.S. oil transportation, highlighting the shift from pipelines to rail and barge, regulatory challenges in Washington state, and safety concerns following the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Quebec. The second article summarizes a scientific study published in Nature regarding the vulnerability of the U.S. electrical grid. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a production related to an investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019215.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a House Oversight collection (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019215) containing the text of a news article or briefing. It details interactions between President-elect Donald Trump and several high-profile healthcare executives—Noseworthy (Mayo Clinic implied), Rothman (Johns Hopkins), Torchiana (Partners HealthCare), and Cosgrove (Cleveland Clinic)—regarding healthcare policy, the future of Obamacare, and potential cabinet positions during the presidential transition period.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031677.jpg
An email thread from February 26, 2018, between physicist Lawrence Krauss and Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias Jeffrey E./jeevacation). Krauss states he is occupied and will see when he can 'get around to writing something,' to which Epstein replies, 'no rush, this is not going away soon.' The document includes Krauss's full ASU signature block and a standard legal disclaimer associated with Epstein's email address.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031622.jpg
An email exchange from October 2016 between NYT reporter Landon Thomas Jr. and Jeffrey Epstein. Thomas seeks Epstein's help with an investigation into Saudi Royal Family finances and liquidations. Epstein provides geopolitical analysis regarding the US government and the Saudi monarchy. Notably, Thomas concludes his initial email by asking Epstein if a previous story he wrote could secure him a meeting with Bill Gates.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity