DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021498.jpg
This document is a placeholder page from a court filing marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]'. It bears headers for two separate case filings (Case 22-1426 and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and a Department of Justice Bates number.
DOJ-OGR-00021497.jpg
This document is a cover page labeled 'Exhibit 2' for a 'Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement' dated September 6, 2007. It contains legal case citations related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and a later appellate or related case (Case 22-1426), along with a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021494.jpg
This document is a placeholder page marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]' within a larger legal filing (Case 22-1426 and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It contains filing headers indicating dates in 2021 and 2023, along with a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021494), but contains no substantive content.
DOJ-OGR-00021493.jpg
This document is a separator or cover page for 'Exhibit 1', described as a 'State Indictment'. It originates from a legal filing dated April 16, 2021, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), and bears a Department of Justice footer.
DOJ-OGR-00021472.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing the failure of the USAO (specifically Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman) to coordinate with the State Attorney's Office regarding victim notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 2008 plea hearing. It reveals that despite a draft letter in December 2007 intended to provide a list of victims to the state, no evidence exists that the letter was sent, leaving state prosecutors (Krischer and Belohlavek) unaware of the federal identified victims. A footnote highlights that Epstein's attorneys explicitly asked the USAO not to inform victims of their rights under state charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021471.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing Alexander Acosta for 'poor judgment' during the Jeffrey Epstein case. Specifically, it details how Acosta failed to ensure victims identified in the federal investigation were notified of the state plea hearing, erroneously deferring this responsibility to the State Attorney without communicating that decision or providing the necessary victim information. The report highlights that while not legally required to notify victims of a state hearing, Acosta should have recognized the logistical failures that would result from a lack of coordination.
DOJ-OGR-00021460.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing whether federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) or Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) during the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It discusses the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007, and notes a conflict between prosecutor Villafaña, who recalled suggesting victim consultation, and her supervisors (Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) who did not recall such discussions. The report concludes that while the VRRA may have been violated, there was no conclusive evidence that the lack of consultation was an intentional effort to silence victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021449.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (labeled SA-273 and appearing to be part of an appendix) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines 'Chapter Three, Part Two: Applicable Standards' and specifically quotes the text of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The text details the eight specific rights afforded to crime victims, the Department of Justice's obligation to accord those rights, and the legal definition of a 'crime victim.'
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00021388.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing, identified by two different case numbers: Case 22-1426 (dated 06/29/2023) and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (filed 04/16/21). The page itself is intentionally left blank, serving as a placeholder within the larger document. A Bates number at the bottom, DOJ-OGR-00021388, indicates it was processed by the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00021384.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the handling of the Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office. It details a significant communication breakdown between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and AUSA Marie Villafaña regarding the signing of Epstein's 2007 plea agreement (NPA), where Villafaña felt forced to sign a deal she opposed while Acosta claimed he intended to give her veto power. It also highlights how senior management (Menchel) blocked Villafaña from meeting directly with Acosta, resulting in final decisions being made without input from the prosecutor most familiar with the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021381.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report critiques the plea negotiations between the USAO (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense. It highlights that the 18-month sentence was a reduction from an initial 'non-negotiable' 2-year offer, a decision for which OPR could find no documented justification or legal basis. The report concludes that Acosta viewed the federal case merely as a 'backstop' to state charges, failing to seek a punishment that matched the severity of Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00021344.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations, specifically noting that key decisions were made before US Attorney Acosta met with defense counsel Lefkowitz. The report cites prosecutor Villafaña's explanation that the decision to pursue an NPA was driven by evidentiary risks and victim privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021340.jpg
This legal document, a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein. OPR concluded that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) did not violate department policy by declining to prosecute two of Epstein's foreign national assistants, which would have triggered their deportation. The report also states that the evidence does not establish that prosecutors, including Acosta and Villafaña, were influenced by improper motives like Epstein's wealth when they agreed to terms favorable to him.
DOJ-OGR-00021334.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It concludes that attorneys Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct because they acted under the direction and approval of U.S. Attorney Acosta, who held broad discretionary authority. The report specifically notes that OPR found no violation of clear statutes or policies in the negotiation and entry into the NPA, including the controversial provision regarding the non-prosecution of unidentified third parties.
DOJ-OGR-00021328.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number 1:20-cr-00330) discussing legal precedents involving prosecutorial discretion and immunity. It cites Supreme Court cases such as Wayte v. United States and Imbler v. Pachtman to argue that prosecutors have broad discretion in charging decisions and absolute immunity regarding those decisions, including the decision *not* to charge. The document concludes by introducing a section on plea agreement promises of leniency towards third parties, which is relevant to the non-prosecution agreement in the Epstein case.
DOJ-OGR-00021321.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the guidelines from the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) for federal prosecutors. It specifies the conditions under which a prosecutor should commence or decline prosecution, listing seven key factors to consider when determining if a substantial federal interest is served. The document also addresses deferring to state prosecution and evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in other jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021302.jpg
This legal document details how prosecutor Acosta, responding to the defense's desire for a 'fresh face', engaged the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) to review the evidence in the Epstein case. CEOS attorney Villafaña traveled to Florida, interviewed victims, and reported back to Acosta and Sloman on the victims' severe trauma and their desire for significant jail time for Epstein rather than restitution. The document also notes the CEOS Trial Attorney's assessment to OPR that the victim witnesses presented numerous challenges for a potential prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021285.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal communications regarding the finalization of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts by the prosecution team (Villafaña, Acosta) to limit the disclosure of the agreement's terms, specifically regarding financial damages, to the Palm Beach Police Chief and the public. The document outlines the specific provisions of the NPA, including the guilty plea to solicitation of minors, the 30-month recommended sentence structure, and the handling of victim damages.
DOJ-OGR-00021277.jpg
This document outlines the internal and external communications of the US Attorney's Office regarding Jeffrey Epstein's plea negotiations on September 20, 2007. It details U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta's refusal to sign the plea agreement personally, insisting the trial team sign it, and his refusal to alter standard charging language. The text also highlights a critical dispute where Epstein's defense attempted to change the charge from solicitation of minors (registrable) to forcing adults into prostitution (non-registrable), which the prosecution rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity