Relationship Details

This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.

This page from a DOJ OPR report criticizes the USAO and FBI for their lack of coordination and transparency in communicating with victims during the Epstein investigation, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It notes that the failure to inform victims created a public perception of collusion and ignored the victims' rights under the recently passed CVRA. The report highlights contradictory communications sent to victims, including instances where the FBI stated the case was under investigation while the USAO stated it was resolved via a state guilty plea.

This document details interactions between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the USAO in late 2007, focusing on submissions, a key meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, and the defense's threat to pursue a Department of Justice review. The discussions revolved around defense complaints, a proposed revised indictment, and a new argument by Epstein's attorneys regarding the applicability of the state charge he agreed to plead guilty to. The document also highlights the USAO's internal review processes and Acosta's communication with Assistant Attorney General Fisher regarding the case.

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.

This document discusses the application of victim rights legislation (VRRA and CVRA) to the Epstein investigation, specifically focusing on victim notification and consultation. It details how the VRRA's provisions regarding victim services and notice may have applied to Epstein's case, and OPR's findings on whether the lack of victim consultation was intended to silence victims, highlighting conflicting recollections among individuals involved.

This document details communications and events in September-October 2007 concerning the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and informing victims. Key figures like Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie discuss preventing the NPA from becoming public, managing information disclosure to victims, and coordinating legal representation for the victims to recover damages from Epstein. There is a clear effort to control the narrative and information flow regarding the NPA and its implications for the victims.

This document details discussions and events surrounding the settlement process for victims related to Epstein. It highlights disagreements between Lefkowitz and Villafaña regarding victim communication and legal procedures, and records meetings and email exchanges between Acosta, Sloman, and Lefkowitz concerning an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a breakfast meeting in West Palm Beach in October 2007.

This document is an excerpt from a report by OPR detailing issues with the handling of the Epstein case, specifically focusing on Acosta's role. It highlights Acosta's decision-making, his perceived distance from the details of the case, and communication failures among key participants like Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel. The report suggests Acosta's actions were driven by concerns about state authority interference, rather than an intent to benefit Epstein.

This document details negotiations and communications surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum in late 2007. It highlights disagreements and strategies among prosecutors (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, Lourie) and defense counsel (Lefkowitz), including the postponement of Epstein's plea and concerns about Epstein's alleged attempts to discredit victims and influence the legal process. The text also includes Acosta's perspective on not dictating to the state attorney's office.

This document, part of a legal case filed in 2021, details communications and negotiations from September 2007 concerning a potential plea deal for Mr. Epstein. It highlights discussions among various legal professionals regarding charges, sexual offender registration, and the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). A key aspect is the USAO's agreement, as part of a draft NPA, not to criminally charge Epstein's female assistants, employees of his corporate entity, and 'potential co-conspirators' in an ongoing federal investigation.

This page of a DOJ report details negotiations in October 2007 regarding the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Lefkowitz argued strongly against federal agents or the USAO contacting victims about the settlement, citing confidentiality and grand jury rules. The document chronicles the scheduling of a breakfast meeting between US Attorney Acosta and Lefkowitz in West Palm Beach on October 12, 2007, while prosecutor Villafaña was on sick leave.

This document, a page from a legal filing, details the contentious negotiations between federal prosecutors (led by Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding an addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in October 2007. It describes the defense's successful request to postpone Epstein's state guilty plea and the prosecution's growing frustration with the defense for revisiting settled issues. The prosecutors also express suspicion that the defense's delay tactics were motivated by a new civil lawsuit filed against Epstein in New York.

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.

This legal document analyzes decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta that created difficulties in enforcing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the USAO's internal debate on whether to declare a breach of the agreement and highlights a critical change Acosta made to the NPA's language, weakening the requirement for Epstein to enter a guilty plea. The document suggests these decisions made it significantly harder for the USAO to prove Epstein was intentionally failing to comply with the agreement.

This document details communications from September 2007 concerning a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Case Agent Villafaña, prosecutors Acosta and Lourie, and defense attorney Lefkowitz discussed how to handle the NPA's disclosure, with a focus on preventing it from becoming public while navigating legal requirements and informing victims. Villafaña also attempted to coordinate the appointment of an attorney representative for the victims and sought guidance on what information could be shared with them and other agents.

This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.