Acosta
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
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.
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