Acosta
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Supervisor subordinate alleged |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Informed by informs |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Communicated email |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Submitted documents to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Submitted documents to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Corresponded objected |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Corresponded replied |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Informed by letter |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Reporter supervisor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Correspondent recipient |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional meeting correspondence |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Reported to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigal Mandelker
|
Communicated shared language |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Collaborated phone conversation |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | OPR's criticism of Acosta's decision to approve the NPA and a specific provision within it, witho... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR investigation into email gaps, questioning Acosta and administrative staff. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation resolved through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's plea agreement and sentencing for an 18-month incarceration, reduced from a 'non-negoti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | OPR's investigation and report on Acosta's handling of the Epstein case, including the decision t... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter concerning Epstein's plea deal, incl... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lourie informed Villafaña that Acosta did not want to pursue a Rule 11(c) plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of plea deal to avoid federal sex trafficking charges for Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiations regarding Epstein's case | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting involving Acosta, Menchel, Marie, and Andy | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation and management of Epstein's case suffered from absence of ownership and communicati... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta's decision to resolve the matter through a state-based plea, interpreting state indictment... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Early meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel where Villafaña raised victim consultation issue a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | NPA negotiations and post-signing efforts by Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion between Acosta and OPR regarding his letter not being an 'inviting' Departmental review. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation of Epstein resolved through a state-based plea and NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation and approval of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta provided 'thoughts' on the USAO's proposed 'hybrid' federal plea agreement to Lourie. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | USAO investigation into Epstein, which ran for more than a year. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Decision-making process regarding a state-based resolution and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Breakfast meeting between Acosta and Lefkowitz | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Epstein | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victim notification process regarding Epstein's case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial considerations for Epstein case, including victim trauma and evidentiary challenges | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Acosta reviewing and approving the final NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). | N/A | View |
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-00021385.jpg
This document details the chaotic final stages of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiations in September 2007, highlighting how the absence of key personnel like Menchel, Lourie, and Sloman led to a lack of clear ownership and fragmented decision-making. The text specifically critiques a broad provision in the agreement not to prosecute 'any potential co-conspirators,' noting it was accepted with little discussion despite internal concerns, which ultimately precluded the USAO from prosecuting others involved in Epstein's criminal conduct.
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-00021382.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021380.jpg
This document details an investigation into the origins of a two-year sentence proposal for Jeffrey Epstein, contrasting the differing recollections of prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman with documentary evidence. The record shows no indication that Epstein's team initially proposed the two-year term; in fact, they argued against any federal prosecution just before the offer was made. The document also outlines alternative, harsher sentencing options the U.S. Attorney's Office considered, such as a plea to a federal offense with a much longer sentence or a conspiracy charge, and why those options were ultimately rejected.
DOJ-OGR-00021379.jpg
This document is a section of a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR criticizes Acosta's decision to prematurely end the investigation and accept a lenient 18-month sentence, forgoing the pursuit of crucial computer evidence. The report also notes OPR's inability to determine the basis for an earlier two-year sentence proposal, highlighting a lack of clarity and justification in the prosecution's strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021375.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report criticizing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The report concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the case with a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before the investigation was complete was 'poor judgment' and prevented the USAO from obtaining significant evidence, such as surveillance footage from the PBPD and cooperation from potential co-conspirators. The document notes that key investigative steps, like interviewing Epstein's assistants, were not taken before the lenient deal was offered.
DOJ-OGR-00021373.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's concerns about federalism led him to craft a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that paradoxically intruded more on state authority and had negative consequences due to the federal team's unfamiliarity with the state court system. This lack of familiarity, a concern raised by fellow prosecutor Villafaña, resulted in unforeseen outcomes like Epstein obtaining work release, which was contrary to the prosecutors' intent.
DOJ-OGR-00021368.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the conflicting recollections of prosecutors Acosta and Lourie regarding a broad provision not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators,' with Lourie suggesting it could have been a message to victims while Acosta focused on Epstein's punishment. OPR concludes the provision was likely intended to protect Epstein's four assistants and other employees, not victims or his influential associates, and that its inclusion was not carefully considered by the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00021366.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that the controversial provision not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" was not the result of improper favoritism by prosecutors Acosta, Lourie, and Villafaña. Instead, the report finds the broad language evolved from a narrower defense request during the exchange of drafts and was included with little internal discussion or analysis within the U.S. Attorney's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg
This document, an OPR report, analyzes prosecutor Villafaña's conduct during the federal investigation and prosecution of Epstein, refuting a public narrative that she colluded with defense counsel. The report concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for prosecuting Epstein, worked to protect victims' anonymity, and cared deeply about them, despite some criticisms of her interactions. It examines email exchanges and supervisor statements to provide context for her actions and explanations.
DOJ-OGR-00021363.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report analyzes the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations between the USAO and Epstein's defense. It concludes that while prosecutor Villafaña's emails to defense attorney Lefkowitz appeared accommodating—suggesting 'off campus' meetings and venue changes to avoid press—OPR did not find evidence that these actions were motivated by improper favoritism or that Acosta's breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz materially altered the sentence. The document notes that state officials, not the USAO, were responsible for granting Epstein work release privileges.
DOJ-OGR-00021362.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing claims made by Lefkowitz about concessions from Acosta regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). OPR examined three claims from Lefkowitz's October 23, 2007 letter and found that evidence did not support them, concluding that Acosta did not agree to interfere with state proceedings or alter the NPA's sentencing provisions. The document cites subsequent communications from USAO representatives Sloman and Villafaña that reinforced the original terms of Epstein's 18-month jail sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021361.jpg
This legal document details the post-meeting communications and ongoing negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office (represented by Acosta and Sloman) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Lefkowitz) regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights a significant dispute over alleged concessions Acosta made during a breakfast meeting, as claimed by Lefkowitz in an October 23, 2007 letter, and a contemporaneous draft response from the USAO refuting those claims.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021354.jpg
This document is part of a legal filing detailing an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into prosecutor Menchel's handling of the Epstein case. The investigation focuses on whether Menchel's prior dating relationship with defense counsel Sanchez in 2003 created a conflict of interest or improperly influenced a plea deal offered years later. The document outlines Menchel's and his supervisor Acosta's conflicting and corroborating statements regarding the decision-making process for the plea, and concludes it would have been prudent for Menchel to disclose the relationship to his supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00021349.jpg
This legal document, part of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, analyzes whether Alexander Acosta's actions in the Jeffrey Epstein case were motivated by improper influences. It argues that Acosta's decision to pursue a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA), which included jail time and sex offender registration, was a more stringent outcome than the likely state-level sentence, which prosecutor Menchel described as a mere 'slap on the wrist.' The document uses this and other evidence, including recollections from prosecutors Sloman and Menchel, to suggest Acosta was not acting to improperly benefit Epstein but was navigating complex policy and federalism issues.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
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-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-00021338.jpg
This legal document analyzes the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein in light of the Department of Justice's 'Ashcroft Memo,' which mandates charging the 'most serious readily provable charge.' It contrasts the federal indictment for sex trafficking prepared by prosecutor Villafaña, which carried a 168-210 month sentence, with the eventual plea deal of an 18-month sentence on state charges. The document also reveals internal disagreement, with prosecutors Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceiving risks in the federal case, while Villafaña and the CEOS Chief believed the charges were appropriate.
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.
Assault on the prosecution
A letter published in The Daily Beast where Acosta described 'a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors' by 'an army of legal superstars'.
Federal responsibility in the Epstein case
Acosta issued a public statement in 2011 explaining the federal role was to be a 'backstop' to state authorities.
Victim notification concerns
Stated belief that contacting victims would compromise them as witnesses and acknowledged Epstein's argument that victims were motivated by money.
Concluding email on Epstein matter
Acknowledged they reached 'the end of a long and arduous road,' expressed unhappiness with government's treatment of his client, but recognized appellate motions lost, seeking closure.
Forwarded citizen complaint
Acosta forwarded the attorney's complaint to the USAO Appellate Division Chief.
Recovery of emails
After correcting a data association error, EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his tenure at the USAO.
Federal charges against Epstein
Acosta predicted that federal charges against Epstein were 'more and more likely'.
Epstein charges
Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was 'more and more likely'.
Follow-up on review process
Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta to confirm they would initiate the review process with Drew Oosterbaan but expressed misgivings due to Oosterbaan's stated readiness to prosecute the case himself.
Concern about Oosterbaan's participation
Starr and Lefkowitz called Acosta to express concern about Oosterbaan's role and indicated they might seek more senior involvement from the Department.
Written notification requirement
Discussed the notification prepared by Villafaña.
Lefkowitz statement
Memorializing statement by Lefkowitz admitting mistake regarding solicitation vs registrable offense
Statement from Lefkowitz
Acosta sent an email memorializing a statement from a phone call with Lefkowitz, where Lefkowitz admitted a possible mistake about whether solicitation was a registrable offense.
Statement from Lefkowitz
Acosta sent an email memorializing a statement from a phone call with Lefkowitz, where Lefkowitz admitted a possible mistake about whether solicitation was a registrable offense.
Likelihood of charging Epstein
In an April 2008 email, Acosta predicted that charging Epstein was “more and more likely.”
Concerns about contacting victims
Acosta wrote in an email that they believed contacting victims would compromise them as witnesses, especially since Epstein argued they were motivated by money.
Victim Notification
Objecting to CVRA notification but agreeing some notice be given by the State Attorney.
Notification dispute
Resolved the notification dispute with defense counsel; contained instructions concerning victim notification.
Notification deferral
Advising USAO will defer notification of state plea to state officials
Deferral of victim notification
Acosta sent a letter to Epstein's counsel advising that the USAO will defer notification of the state plea to state officials.
Resolving notification dispute
Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense counsel in his December 19, 2007 letter.
NPA modification
Acosta's letter proposing NPA modification was ultimately rejected by the defense team.
Proposal to resolve disagreements over NPA interpretation
Acosta sent a letter to Sanchez proposing to resolve disagreements by replacing existing NPA language.
NPA Revisions and Victim Notification
Acosta offered to revise the NPA to resolve disagreements and clarified that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney on notifying victims about state proceedings.
Victim Notification
Acosta advised the Defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney on notifying victims of the state hearing but would notify them of the federal resolution.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity