| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Villafaña
|
Business associate |
22
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
30 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
37 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Prosecutor defendant |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Lourie
|
Business associate |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Subordinate supervisor |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Investigative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial prosecutor defendant |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Professional adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional prosecutor defendant |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Starr
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Lefkowitz
|
Adversarial negotiating |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Kenneth Starr
|
Professional connection |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Sloman
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jay Lefkowitz
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Menchel
|
Subordinate supervisor |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Villafaña
|
Supervisory |
6
|
2 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
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 |
This document, likely a news report or legal summary produced for the House Oversight Committee, details testimony from Epstein's house manager Juan Alessi regarding visits by Prince Andrew and Donald Trump. It contrasts their behaviors, noting Andrew received massages while Trump only ate dinner in the kitchen and declined massages. The text also discusses legal actions led by attorneys Scarola and Edwards regarding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (the 'sweetheart deal') and a separate financial dispute involving Trump's golf club.
This document appears to be an excerpt from a news article (likely the Miami Herald) presented as evidence in a House Oversight investigation. It details the 2008 plea deal negotiations and sentencing of Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting a specific quote from prosecutor Villafaña about hiding other crimes and co-conspirators from the judge. It also documents false statements made in court regarding victim notification and includes comments from victims' attorney Bradley Edwards suggesting higher-ups directed the prosecutors' actions. The document includes a footer with contact details for Epstein's lawyer, Darren K. Indyke.
This document, stemming from a House Oversight collection, appears to be an excerpt from a report or article comparing the U.S. Attorney's Office's strict handling of a defendant named McDaniel with their lenient handling of Jeffrey Epstein. It details how prosecutors Acosta and Villafaña negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein's lawyers (including Jay Lefkowitz) in 2007, suppressing a 53-page federal indictment and keeping victims uninformed to ensure the deal's success. The text highlights the 'Perversion of Justice' investigation which exposed these actions.
This document appears to be an email sent by attorney Darren K. Indyke (likely in 2019) containing the text of a news article reviewing the 2008 plea deal of Jeffrey Epstein. The text highlights the failure to inform victims about the plea agreement, citing court transcripts between Judge Pucillo and prosecutor Belohlavek, and includes comments from victim attorney Bradley Edwards suggesting prosecutors were directed by superiors to settle. The document includes Indyke's signature block with contact details redacted and bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
This document, likely an excerpt from a report or article submitted to the House Oversight Committee, details the prosecutorial misconduct surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It contrasts a previous case (McDaniel) where prosecutors were criticized for lack of candor with the Epstein negotiations in September 2007, where prosecutors Villafaña and Acosta actively worked to hide the scope of Epstein's crimes from the judge and the public. It highlights an email where Villafaña explicitly states she prefers not to highlight other crimes or potential co-defendants to the judge during sentencing.
This document appears to be an excerpt from a House Oversight Committee record (stamped 021730). It quotes Senior U.S. District Court Judge William J. Zloch expressing strong criticism of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida for intentionally withholding information from the court. The text notes that Judge Zloch copied Acosta on this specific order.
This document, likely an excerpt from a news article included in House Oversight records, details Jeffrey Epstein's connections to high-profile figures and his legal strategy during his 2006 prosecution. It describes his recruitment of Virginia Roberts at Mar-a-Lago, his 2002 trip to South Africa with Bill Clinton and celebrities, and his hiring of politically connected lawyers Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to combat federal prosecutor Acosta.
Acosta's email stating "Just read the letter" and outlining refusal to include a gag order provision and concerns about the agreement's purpose.
Acosta's reply about being happy to talk but wanting [M]arie on the call to avoid undermining staff during negotiations and allowing interlocutory appeals.
Acosta believed the state would notify victims and was unsure about overlap or list sharing with USAO.
Acosta instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to potential conflict of interest.
Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta, asserting the § 2255 provision was 'inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable'.
Lefkowitz sent a follow-up letter to Acosta asserting that Epstein was intentionally delaying plea entry and that defense counsel was making efforts to resolve issues.
Acosta stated he's unaware of victim notifications rising to management level.
Acosta told OPR about discussions with senior managers regarding victim credibility, reluctance to testify, and evidentiary strength, and his belief that a trial would pose challenges.
Immediately after a breakfast meeting, Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the Addendum language.
Acosta's letter concluded on NPA negotiations and post-signing efforts. It expressed surprise at a letter to Department Headquarters raising issues already resolved or not raised previously to his office.
Response to Acosta's letter, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, on the day after Acosta's letter was received.
Acosta commented that the USAO's proposed 'hybrid' federal plea agreement seemed 'very straightforward' and that they were 'not changing our standard charging language.' He also stated he didn't typically sign plea agreements and that this shouldn't be the first, emphasizing that the USAO should only proceed if the trial team supports it.
Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often information traveled through multiple layers.
Acosta was copied on many substantive emails.
Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the meeting.
Request to postpone plea from Oct 26 to Nov 20 due to scheduling conflict.
Notified that defense might appeal to her and asked her to grant expedited review to preserve plea date
Discussed reliance on team and evidentiary strength.
Judge Zloch copied Acosta on an order criticizing the US Attorney's Office for withholding information.
Acosta stated he believed the state would notify victims.
Acosta explained his reasoning for the plea deal, citing witness issues, legal issues, and the preference for state resolution.
Stated he was unaware of notifications and assumed it didn't rise to management level.
Acosta explained his reasoning regarding the Petite policy and state vs federal jurisdiction.
Acosta confirmed he endorsed the resolution and viewed the federal role as a backstop.
Acosta told OPR he understood his attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity