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 |
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.
Resolving notification dispute
Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense counsel in his December 19, 2007 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.
Epstein matter
Letter submitted with Sloman's June 3, 2008 letter.
NPA modification
Acosta's letter proposing NPA modification was ultimately rejected by the defense team.
Follow-up to Dec 14 meeting
Pressed objections to USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter.
Discussion of defense complaints
Meeting in Miami to discuss defense complaints; new argument raised by Epstein's attorneys regarding state charge applicability.
Potential Appeal and Expedited Review
Acosta notified Fisher that the defense team might appeal and requested an expedited review to preserve the January 4th plea date.
Review of Evidence and Epstein's Position
Lengthy letter reviewing meeting issues, advising Epstein sought expedited review, and reiterating Epstein's position on registrable offense and damages.
Potential Department Review
Lefkowitz notified Acosta that the defense team might pursue a department review if issues were not resolved promptly.
Request for review
Lengthy letter reviewing issues discussed at meeting and requesting prompt independent review
The letters you requested
Forwarded draft victim notification letter and two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer.
Substantive challenges to NPA and Epstein investigation, ...
Starr transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz to Acosta, challenging the NPA and the conduct of the Epstein investigation, and raising concerns about victim notification.
Substantive challenges to NPA and Epstein investigation, ...
Starr transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz to Acosta, challenging the NPA and the conduct of the Epstein investigation, and raising concerns about victim notification.
Challenges to NPA and Investigation Conduct
Transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz challenging the NPA and the 'background and conduct of the investigation'. One 20-page submission criticized Villafaña and federal overreaching, another 13-page submission reiterated complaints about § 2255 component of NPA.
Defense Complaints
Lefkowitz's submissions raising defense complaints.
Substantive challenges to NPA and investigation into Epstein
Starr transmitted two lengthy submissions authored by Lefkowitz. These submissions presented challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the conduct of the Epstein investigation, particularly regarding victim notification issues.
Complaints about Federal Investigation and Villafaña
Two 'independent ethics opinions', one by Joe Whitley, assessing improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein, and another by a retired federal judge/U.S. Attorney, arguing against NPA's use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for civil damages recovery.
Reaffirmation of NPA
Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman and Fisher, reaffirming the NPA but taking 'serious issue' with an unspecified matter.
Reaffirmation of NPA and serious issue
Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, reaffirming the NPA but taking 'serious issue' with something unspecified.
Deadline for 'Affirmation'
Set a deadline for the defense to transmit Epstein's 'Affirmation'.
Directive regarding victim notification letters
Acosta informed defense counsel Starr that he had directed prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until 5 p.m. on December 7 to give the defense time to review options.
Response to objections regarding NPA
Acosta replied to Lefkowitz, accusing the defense of delaying the NPA and stating they were ready to 'unwind the Agreement' and proceed to trial.
Reply to objection
Acosta accused the defense team of presenting 'collateral challenges' and asserted that if Epstein was dissatisfied with the NPA, the government was ready to unwind the agreement and proceed to trial.
Response to complaint
Directing him to raise concerns with Villafaña or Sloman
Objection to proposed draft notification letter
Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft notification letter, arguing the government was not obligated to send it until after Epstein's plea and sentencing, and that victims had no right to appear.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity