Acosta
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Involved in discussions predictions about |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's attorneys
|
Professional negotiating adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Professional negotiating adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional negotiating adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Dershowitz
|
Professional indirectly connected via epstein case and harvard |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional collaboration supervision |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subject of negotiation agreement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Discussed document |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Recipient sender submissions |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Instructor instructed |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Subject of investigation government official involved in case |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Communicated with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Communicated with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Received terminology from |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Official connection |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Communicated via email involved in negotiations |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Prosecutor subject of investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Investigator subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, immediate supervisor
|
Discussed case with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Recommended action to |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Subject of review by |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Decision maker approver |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant Attorney General Fisher
|
Reported to communicated with |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-09-19 | N/A | Internal DOJ/USAO dispute regarding plea negotiations. Villafaña and Lourie wanted to stop negoti... | Internal (Email/Office) | View |
| 2007-09-14 | Meeting/review | Villafaña's colleagues and supervisors (Lourie, Sloman, Acosta) reviewed and reacted to the propo... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | A meeting between Acosta and defense counsel was scheduled for this date. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | Acosta, other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Supervisors meet with Epstein's attorneys. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña [+others] meet with Epstein’s counsel. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | A meeting was held for Epstein's defense team to argue against federal prosecution. Starr focused... | USAO’s West Palm Beach office | View |
| 2007-09-07 | N/A | Meeting: Defense presents counteroffer | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-07 | Meeting | A meeting where the defense team presented their federalism arguments. Acosta intended it to be f... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-07 | N/A | Defense presents counteroffer | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-06 | Communication | Villafaña e-mails Sloman raising victim consultation issue, which Sloman forwards to Acosta. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-06 | Communication | Villafaña informed Sloman, who in turn informed Acosta, of Oosterbaan’s opinion that victim consu... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-06 | N/A | Villafaña sent an email to Sloman regarding victim consultation, who then informed Acosta. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-06 | Communication | Villafaña sent an email to Sloman raising the victim consultation issue, who then informed Acosta. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Sloman goes on vacation; Lourie takes over finalizing the plea. | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Drafting and negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement/plea letter for Jeffrey Epstein. | USAO | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | September agreement | Unknown | View |
| 2007-08-17 | Deadline | A plea deadline that Acosta had dispensed with to allow the defense to meet with him. | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-08 | Communication | Villafaña informed Acosta about her conversation with Oosterbaan and plans for a meeting with the... | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-07 | Planning | Acosta wrote to Sloman proposing a meeting with Epstein's attorneys to prevent them from escalati... | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-06 | Communication | Sloman emailed Acosta about a call from Kirkland & Ellis, and Acosta replied with strategic conce... | N/A | View |
| 2007-08-03 | N/A | Menchel raised concern about victims exaggerating stories for damages from Epstein during a discu... | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Legal action | Acosta's decision to offer terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2007-07-31 | Legal action | Terms for a state-based resolution in the Epstein case were offered to the defense. | null | View |
| 2007-07-26 | Decision | Villafaña learns from Menchel that Acosta decided to offer Epstein a two-year state-based resolut... | N/A | View |
| 2007-06-26 | N/A | Meeting referenced in emails where Acosta was still deciding on the case strategy. | Unknown | View |
EFTA00033675.pdf
This document contains the Daily Lieutenant's Log for the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York for Thursday, August 15, 2019. It details shift activities, sensitive inmate information (including suicide watches), chronological events such as counts, alarms, and inmate movements, as well as operational metrics like counts and equipment checks across three shifts (Morning Watch, Day Watch, Evening Watch).
EFTA00014163.pdf
An email dated June 3, 2008, with redacted sender and recipient fields. The subject concerns a 'Page 6 Article' regarding a letter from Lefcourt to Acosta, which is attached as a PDF. The body of the email reveals the unredacted filename 'Page 6 Article re Lefcourt Ltr to Acosta.pdf', identifying the recipient of the letter as Acosta.
EFTA00013916.pdf
This document is an email chain from May 2008 between FBI agents and USAFLS attorneys discussing the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Key topics include frustration over delays caused by Epstein's defense team, the presentation of arguments to the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) by Acosta to prevent further stalling, and the urgency created by expiring statutes of limitations and grand jury terms. The emails reveal that investigators had identified over 20 known child victims, one of whom confirmed telling Epstein she was 14 or 15, to which he allegedly replied he did not care about age. The correspondence also mentions a plea deal reduction from 2 years to 18 months and concerns about private investigators harassing victims.
EFTA00013701.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2007 involving Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and officials at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS), including Alexander Acosta (CC'd). Lefkowitz sends a response to a letter to 'Jeff'. The subsequent internal government emails discuss a Palm Beach Post article, with one official noting they 'especially like the part about how the feds were overreaching the whole time,' likely referencing public perception or a quote in the article.
DOJ-OGR-00000228.tif
This document outlines legal proceedings related to Epstein and a petitioner. It details the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, his 2008 guilty plea in Florida for two offenses, and his subsequent incarceration. The document also describes a 2019 indictment of Epstein for sex trafficking minors by the Southern District of New York and a 2020 indictment of a petitioner for offenses related to a scheme with Epstein, including facilitating sexual activity by minors and perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00000192.tif
This document excerpt, labeled 129a and part of a DOJ report, details OPR's criticism of Acosta's decision to approve a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a specific provision within it. The criticism stems from Acosta's alleged failure to consider the potential consequences of the provision and to whom it would apply. The document also includes a reference to Section IV of the Part.
DOJ-OGR-00000190.tif
This document discusses the legal proceedings and agreements related to Epstein, detailing how his sentencing was handled and reduced. It highlights Acosta's role in approving the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and references an email exchange between the State Attorney and Villafaña regarding the resolution of the case. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the agreement allowed Epstein to resolve a federal investigation for an 18-month state sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00000164.tif
This document excerpt details key events in the Jeffrey Epstein case, including his arrest on July 6, 2019, his detention in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, and his death on August 10, 2019. It also covers the controversy surrounding Acosta's handling of the Epstein investigation, leading to his resignation as Secretary of Labor on July 12, 2019, following media and Congressional scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00023203.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña during the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that Villafaña consistently advocated for Epstein's prosecution and victims' interests, despite a public narrative suggesting collusion with defense counsel. The report details Villafaña's efforts to protect victims' anonymity, expand the case scope, and draft victim notification letters, while refuting claims that she was 'soft on Epstein' based on witness statements and email context.
DOJ-OGR-00023198.tif
This document analyzes the circumstances surrounding a breakfast meeting between Acosta and Epstein's defense counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, on October 12, 2007, and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2007. OPR concludes that Acosta did not make significant concessions during the breakfast meeting, as the key provisions of the NPA, including Epstein's 18-month sentence and sexual offender registration, were established prior to the meeting and not materially altered thereafter. The document also references a Miami Herald article critical of Acosta's involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00023190.tif
This document details ethical considerations and actions taken by various individuals involved in the Epstein case, particularly focusing on potential conflicts of interest for USAO staff. It highlights discussions and decisions made by Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Acosta regarding their relationships with Epstein's attorneys and their professional responsibilities. The document also mentions Acosta's recusal from the case due to potential employment with Kirkland & Ellis and a separate consultation regarding a possible professorship at Harvard while Dershowitz represented Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00023184.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report detailing witness challenges and concerns surrounding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It includes recollections from individuals like Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta regarding the viability of a federal prosecution, victim reluctance to testify, evidentiary hurdles, and the eventual negotiated result that led to Epstein serving time and registering as a sexual offender.
DOJ-OGR-00023180.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, discusses OPR's investigation into whether Epstein's status, wealth, or associations improperly influenced the outcome of his case. It concludes that OPR found no evidence of such influence, despite news reports in 2006 identifying Epstein as wealthy and connected to prominent figures like William Clinton, Donald Trump, and Kevin Spacey. The report notes that FBI personnel initially unfamiliar with Epstein later became aware of his connections, including those who had been on his plane, and that his legal team's mention of Clinton in pre-NPA letters was contextual.
DOJ-OGR-00023175.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif
This document, an excerpt from an analysis report (Chapter Two, Part Three), discusses the public and media scrutiny following the Miami Herald's November 2018 report on the handling of the Epstein investigation. It focuses on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), allegations of a 'sweetheart deal' by Acosta and the USAO due to improper influences, and OPR's investigation into these matters, concluding that Acosta reviewed and approved the NPA terms and is accountable for it. The report also mentions other individuals (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña) involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023153.tif
This document details events in November 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's work release, which USAO official Villafaña believed breached his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Villafaña communicated her concerns to defense attorney Black and other officials, leading to a notice of NPA violation and the recusal of Acosta from the case. The document highlights the ongoing dispute regarding the terms of Epstein's incarceration and the perceived special treatment he received.
DOJ-OGR-00023148.tif
This document details events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing from June 2008 to June 2009, including communications between various officials regarding the handling of his case and concerns about the terms of his plea agreement. It highlights discrepancies and objections raised by Villafaña regarding Epstein's proposed custody arrangements, suggesting a potential violation of the agreement's spirit.
DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif
This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif
This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.
DOJ-OGR-00023141.tif
This document details the Department's review of the Epstein case from February to June 2008, initiated by Epstein's defense attorneys. It highlights internal discussions and notifications within the US justice system, including a February 28, 2008, notification from USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior to the Civil Rights Division regarding an ongoing child exploitation investigation involving Epstein. The notification, prepared by Villafaña and edited by Sloman, assessed the case as not being of "national interest" and anticipated charges under specific U.S. Code sections.
DOJ-OGR-00023138.tif
This document details efforts by Acosta to revise the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with language concerning monetary damages for victims of Jeffrey Epstein, which was ultimately rejected by the defense. It highlights disagreements and frustrations between prosecutors and defense counsel regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Section 2255 provision, particularly concerning victim notification and Epstein's alleged delays in his guilty plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023137.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00023136.tif
This document details the efforts of Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in December 2007 to challenge the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the federal investigation. It describes how defense counsel Starr and Lefkowitz sent letters and 'ethics opinions' to Acosta, criticizing the investigation and accusing an individual named Villafaña of improper conduct and federal overreaching, while Epstein reaffirmed his acceptance of the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
This document excerpt details concerns raised by Acosta regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically about challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the defense team's tactics. Acosta's letter expresses frustration over the lack of finality and issues being appealed to Department Headquarters, while also setting a deadline of December 7, 2007, for a decision on the Agreement. It also describes Acosta's discussions with OPR and a subsequent response to Acosta from Starr and Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00023131.tif
This document details communications and events surrounding a legal agreement, likely related to Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights disagreements over gag order provisions, the selection of a special master, and concerns raised by USAO representative Villafaña regarding the selection of a private attorney and defense attacks. The document mentions the signing of an NPA addendum by Epstein and his attorneys on October 29, 2007.
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.
Epstein charges
Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was 'more and more likely'.
Federal charges against Epstein
Acosta predicted that federal charges against Epstein were '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.
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.
Lefkowitz statement
Memorializing statement by Lefkowitz admitting mistake regarding solicitation vs 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
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.
Clarification of damages provision
A letter from Acosta to Epstein's defense attorney Sanchez clarifying the damages provision, language from which was later used by Villafaña.
Epstein matter
Letter submitted with Sloman's June 3, 2008 letter.
Victim notification instructions
OPR found no evidence that Acosta sent the letter or any similar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafaña and Sloman with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, 2007 letter.
Proposal to resolve disagreements over NPA interpretation
Acosta sent a letter to Sanchez proposing to resolve disagreements by replacing existing NPA language.
NPA modification
Acosta's letter proposing NPA modification was ultimately rejected by the defense team.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity