Acosta
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched a probe into professional misconduct by prosecutors. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2020-03-25 | N/A | Bail denied in US v. Acosta | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-07-19 | Resignation | Acosta resigned as U.S. Secretary of Labor. | N/A | View |
| 2019-07-12 | Resignation | Acosta submitted his resignation to the President. | N/A | View |
| 2019-07-10 | Press conference | Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his actions regarding the Epstein NPA. | N/A | View |
| 2017-04-01 | Appointment | Acosta became the U.S. Secretary of Labor. | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | N/A | Acosta appointed as U.S. Secretary of Labor. | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2016-03-29 | Court ruling | In United States v. Acosta, the court denied the Government's detention application and granted t... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2011-01-01 | Public statement | Acosta issued a public statement explaining the federal role in the Epstein case. | N/A | View |
| 2009-06-01 | Career transition | Acosta left the USAO and became the Dean of the Florida International University College of Law. | N/A | View |
| 2008-12-08 | N/A | Acosta's recusal formally approved by the Department. | N/A | View |
| 2008-12-01 | Recusal | Acosta was formally recused from the Epstein matter, and Sloman became the senior USAO official s... | N/A | View |
| 2008-11-26 | N/A | USAO advised Department of Justice about Acosta's recusal from Epstein-related matters due to pot... | N/A | View |
| 2008-11-26 | N/A | Acosta recused from Epstein case due to employment talks with Kirkland & Ellis. | USAO | View |
| 2008-06-27 | N/A | Starr sends concluding email to Acosta regarding the Epstein matter. | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-03 | N/A | Sloman sent a lengthy letter to the Deputy Attorney General detailing negotiations with Epstein's... | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-28 | Meeting | Attorney General Mukasey had lunch at the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers for unrelate... | Miami | View |
| 2008-05-28 | N/A | Acosta presentation to DAG regarding case delays. | Unknown | View |
| 2008-05-19 | N/A | CEOS Review | Unknown | View |
| 2008-05-19 | Meeting request | Lefkowitz contacted Acosta to request a meeting to discuss the Epstein case. | N/A | View |
| 2008-05-01 | N/A | USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's counterpart regarding ... | Harvard Law School (potenti... | View |
| 2008-04-18 | Complaint | Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney regarding a perceived violation o... | N/A | View |
| 2008-03-06 | Communication | Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz had called him to express concern a... | N/A | View |
| 2008-02-01 | N/A | Villafaña becomes aware of notification requirement and prepares written notification. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-07 | Meeting | Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney Sanchez, who alleged misconduct by the USAO's media s... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023129.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00023127.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00023122.tif
This document details the finalization and signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) on September 24, 2007. It highlights the edits made by Acosta, including changes to Epstein's plea and sentencing requirements, and communications between various parties like Villafaña, Lourie, and Lefkowitz regarding the agreement's language and confidentiality. The document also notes the USAO's duty to redact protected information before disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00023120.tif
This document details communications and events surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal and sex offender registration in September 2007. It highlights objections from Sanchez and Lefkowitz to the registration requirement, citing a 'misunderstanding' at a prior meeting where prosecutors Krischer and Belohlavek initially stated the offense was not registrable. The document shows efforts by Epstein's defense to avoid registration and secure an 18-month federal camp sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00023118.tif
This document details negotiations and internal communications surrounding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein, focusing on the involvement of Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, and Lourie. Key points include Villafaña's revised NPA which proposed a 30-month sentence for Epstein and included non-prosecution for co-conspirators, and a dispute with Lourie over the inclusion of an immigration waiver for Epstein's foreign national assistants. The document also touches on the USAO's general stance on immigration issues and the reluctance to charge Epstein's accomplices.
DOJ-OGR-00023116.tif
This document excerpt details the breakdown of negotiations for a federal plea agreement for Epstein by September 20, 2007, shifting focus to a state-only resolution to which the defense wanted to avoid sexual offender registration. It describes communications between Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Lourie, and Krischer regarding proposed plea terms, sentencing, and deadlines, highlighting Villafaña's firm stance against further delays and Epstein's apparent goal to avoid sexual offender registration.
DOJ-OGR-00023115.tif
This document details ongoing negotiations and disagreements surrounding a federal plea agreement for Mr. Epstein in September 2007. It highlights the involvement of Assistant State Attorney Villafaña, who communicated with Belohlavek and sent revised agreements to Lefkowitz, and Acosta, who provided feedback on the USAO's 'hybrid' plea agreement to Lourie, emphasizing the trial team's support is crucial. A key point of contention was the change in offense description from solicitation of minors to forcing adults into prostitution, which made the agreement unacceptable to Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00023090.tif
This document details discussions and drafts surrounding a non-prosecution agreement for Epstein, focusing on victim compensation and the requirement for Epstein to register as a sex offender. It mentions key individuals like Acosta, Menchel, and Villafaña, and highlights changes made to Villafaña's initial draft before presentation to defense counsel. The text also references relevant legal statutes concerning civil remedies for victims of certain crimes and a memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford.
DOJ-OGR-00023094.tif
This document details changes made by Menchel to a draft letter by Villafaña regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential plea deal, focusing on the shift from a federal plea to a state imprisonment term. It highlights the involvement of several individuals including Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie in discussions and decisions surrounding the Rule 11(c) plea, with an email from Villafaña to Sloman on September 6, 2007, suggesting Acosta's ultimate decision to nix the federal plea.
DOJ-OGR-00023326.tif
This document details findings from an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into email records related to the Epstein case. It covers email migration, an email gap in Acosta's inbox attributed to a technological error, and OPR's efforts to obtain email and calendar data from various Department of Justice entities, including the FBI, Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to reconstruct communications concerning the Epstein investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023325.tif
This document is a review of documents obtained by OPR from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), the FBI, and other Department components related to the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. It details the types of records reviewed, including emails, correspondence, and investigative materials, and notes a data gap in Acosta's email records.
DOJ-OGR-00023322.tif
This document is an excerpt from an OPR report analyzing the handling of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It concludes that former U.S. Attorney Acosta, while not committing professional misconduct, exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with a state-based plea, citing his failure to complete investigative steps and agreeing to problematic terms. The report states that Acosta's decision was not found to be based on corruption or Epstein's wealth, status, or associations.
DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif
This document discusses issues related to victim communication and transparency surrounding the Epstein case, highlighting how the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) was kept secret, leading to victims feeling ignored and public criticism. It criticizes the USAO for not prioritizing victim communications and notes that decisions by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña contributed to these problems, emphasizing the need for more unified and transparent engagement with victims. OPR recognizes inconsistencies in communication between the FBI and USAO and suggests greater oversight in future cases involving multiple Department components.
DOJ-OGR-00023315.tif
This document analyzes legal conduct related to the Epstein case, focusing on prosecutor Villafaña's alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards in early 2008. It discusses whether her actions violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) concerning false statements and dishonest conduct, referencing the Eleventh Circuit's findings on the government's handling of victim notifications. The text cites several Florida Bar legal cases to support its analysis of attorney conduct and intent.
DOJ-OGR-00023310.tif
This document details the Office of Professional Responsibility's (OPR) findings and criticisms regarding Acosta's handling of victim notification in the Epstein case. It focuses on Acosta's personal involvement in the notification process, his decision to defer responsibility to the State Attorney, and his failure to ensure victims were properly informed of Epstein's state court pleas, despite his staff's efforts. The document highlights the inadequate communication and coordination between the USAO, Acosta, and the State Attorney's Office concerning victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00023303.tif
This document analyzes Acosta's decision regarding victim notification in the Epstein case, concluding that while he didn't violate clear standards by deferring to state authorities, he exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure federal investigation victims were notified. The report details the USAO's initial stance, Epstein's attorneys' challenges in late 2007, and the subsequent decisions made by Acosta, including a strategic postponement of NPA notification based on Villafaña and case agents' concerns. OPR's findings were met with strong disagreement from Acosta regarding the applied standard.
DOJ-OGR-00023301.tif
This document details investigative activities related to Jeffrey Epstein in late 2007 and 2008, focusing on Villafaña's role in preparing for a potential trial and federal charges, despite an existing Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights efforts to identify new victims, revise prosecution strategies, and secure legal representation for victims, while also noting internal communications about the likelihood of charges and the ongoing nature of the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023297.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00023296.tif
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.
DOJ-OGR-00023276.tif
This document details the process of victim notification following Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement in July-August 2008. AUSA Villafaña played a central role, sending letters to victims, coordinating with the FBI, and proposing language for victim contact, while also addressing disputes over the final victim list with the defense counsel and her supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
This document excerpt details discussions and concerns surrounding victim notification and the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta provided accounts to OPR regarding the federal plea process, communication between federal and state authorities, and the challenges of victim identification and notification, including a potential $150,000 payment for victims. The text also highlights discrepancies in victim counts and the impact of Epstein's defense team on inter-agency communications.
DOJ-OGR-00023263.tif
This document details FBI interviews of Jeffrey Epstein's victims in early 2008, focusing on victim Wild's willingness to testify and confusion regarding the case's status. It also describes the emotional distress of other victims and communications between officials like Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman regarding victim management and the difficulties of prosecution. The text references contemporary news articles about the case and highlights discrepancies in FBI reporting of victim interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00023262.tif
This document details the efforts of FBI agent Villafaña, the FBI, and a CEOS Trial Attorney in organizing the case against Epstein and interviewing victims between January and May 2008. It describes an attorney's attempt to file civil litigation against Epstein and the reporting of a $50 million civil suit and an anticipated plea deal by the New York Post. The document also notes that the FBI and prosecutors interviewed additional victims and that an FBI report indicates a victim's belief that Epstein should be prosecuted.
DOJ-OGR-00023254.tif
This document excerpt details legal arguments and communications surrounding victim notification in the Epstein case in late 2007. It highlights disagreements between legal representatives (Starr, Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta, Villafaña) regarding victim status, notification requirements, and the appropriate compensation mechanisms, with a specific focus on an individual referred to as 'Jane Doe #2' whose attorney was paid by Epstein.
This has to stop
Acosta's email stating "Just read the letter" and outlining refusal to include a gag order provision and concerns about the agreement's purpose.
No Subject
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.
Victim notification, state vs. federal victims
Acosta believed the state would notify victims and was unsure about overlap or list sharing with USAO.
Emails relating to Epstein matter
Acosta instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter due to potential conflict of interest.
Reiterating concerns with § 2255 provision
Lefkowitz sent a second letter to Acosta, asserting the § 2255 provision was 'inherently flawed and becoming truly unmanageable'.
USAO's concern about Epstein's delays
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.
Management awareness of victim notifications
Acosta stated he's unaware of victim notifications rising to management level.
No Subject
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.
Addendum Language
Immediately after a breakfast meeting, Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the Addendum language.
Issues regarding the Agreement
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.
No Subject
Response to Acosta's letter, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, on the day after Acosta's letter was received.
Thoughts on USAO's 'hybrid' federal plea agreement
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.
No Subject
Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often information traveled through multiple layers.
Substantive case details
Acosta was copied on many substantive emails.
Breakfast meeting follow-up
Acosta phoned Sloman regarding the meeting.
Plea Postponement
Request to postpone plea from Oct 26 to Nov 20 due to scheduling conflict.
Potential Defense Appeal
Notified that defense might appeal to her and asked her to grant expedited review to preserve plea date
Management decisions
Discussed reliance on team and evidentiary strength.
Court Order regarding withheld information
Judge Zloch copied Acosta on an order criticizing the US Attorney's Office for withholding information.
State notification of victims
Acosta stated he believed the state would notify victims.
Epstein Case Handling
Acosta explained his reasoning for the plea deal, citing witness issues, legal issues, and the preference for state resolution.
Management oversight
Stated he was unaware of notifications and assumed it didn't rise to management level.
Investigation into Epstein case handling
Acosta explained his reasoning regarding the Petite policy and state vs federal jurisdiction.
Decision Making
Acosta confirmed he endorsed the resolution and viewed the federal role as a backstop.
Sentence reduction
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