Epstein Data Wiki

Alex Acosta

Properties2
tagsperson, prosecutor, usao-sdfl, non-prosecution-agreement, department-of-justice
aliasesR. Alexander Acosta, Alexander Acosta, Alex Acosta

29 min read

Alex Acosta
Alexander Acosta, official portrait as Secretary of Labor. US Department of Labor via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.
OfficeU.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida; interim from June 2005, sworn in October 2006, left June 20091
Earlier officesMember, National Labor Relations Board (2002); Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division (August 2003 – 2005)1
Later officesDean, Florida International University College of Law (2009); U.S. Secretary of Labor (April 2017 – July 19, 2019)1
2007 Non-Prosecution AgreementExecuted on his authority; approved by him; not signed by him23
OPR conclusionNo professional misconduct; “poor judgment” in resolving the investigation through the agreement and in failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing45
DepartureResigned as Secretary of Labor July 12, 2019, effective July 1961

R. Alexander Acosta was United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida when his office resolved its 2006–2008 criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement rather than a federal indictment.78 The agreement was executed “on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida,” and the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) found that although Acosta did not sign it, he participated in its drafting, approved it with knowledge of its terms, and accepted responsibility for it.23 OPR concluded that none of the five subject attorneys committed professional misconduct, but that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the agreement “constitutes poor judgment,” and that he exercised poor judgment a second time when he left the decision whether to notify victims of the state plea hearing to the state prosecutor.45 Acosta was Secretary of Labor when Epstein was arrested in the Southern District of New York on July 6, 2019; he held a press conference defending his handling of the case on July 10 and submitted his resignation on July 12.6 Acosta’s own explanations to OPR on both points are set out below.910

Career before the Epstein case

Acosta was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in June 2005, at age 36; President George W. Bush formally nominated him in June 2006 and he was sworn in as U.S. Attorney in October 2006.1 After law school he served a federal appellate clerkship, spent eighteen months as an associate at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C., worked about four years as a policy fellow and law school lecturer, and served nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.1 He was appointed to the National Labor Relations Board in 2002 and, in 2003, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division, where he served from August 2003 until his appointment as interim U.S. Attorney and where he oversaw, among other matters, the prosecution of human trafficking and child sex-trafficking cases.1 As U.S. Attorney his office was in the Miami headquarters.1

The federal investigation

The Palm Beach Police Department began investigating Epstein in 2005 after a complaint that he had paid a minor for a massage.7 A Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein on July 19, 2006 for felony solicitation of prostitution; dissatisfied with the state’s handling of the case, the police chief and the lead detective referred the matter to the FBI in West Palm Beach.7 The FBI brought it to an Assistant U.S. Attorney, who opened a file with her supervisor’s approval and with Acosta’s knowledge, and who in May 2007 submitted a draft 60-count indictment and a prosecution memorandum to her supervisors.7 At a July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein’s attorneys the office offered to end its investigation if Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, served a minimum of two years’ incarceration, registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain damages.7 In a November 30, 2007 letter narrating the negotiations, Acosta wrote that Epstein’s counsel remained dissatisfied and that a further meeting was arranged for September 7, 2007 to allow additional attorneys to attend, at which he, other prosecutors and FBI agents met with Epstein’s counsel, and that “the unanimous opinion of all of the attorneys present was in favor of prosecution.”11 At that meeting counsel for Epstein proposed that he instead serve a sentence of home confinement at his Palm Beach house, with private security officers serving as “wardens,” on the ground that “as a wealthy white man, your client may be the subject of violence or extortion while in prison,” and urged that Epstein’s “extensive charitable giving should be considered in our prosecution decision.”11 Acosta wrote that he “summarily rejected these proposals,” and that of four other prosecutors present, representing a combined experience of more than fifty years, “[n]ever had any of them heard, or heard of, an attorney making a similar argument, and especially not in a child exploitation case.”11

The 2007 non-prosecution agreement

Negotiations over the following weeks produced the non-prosecution agreement, signed on September 24, 2007.712 Shortly after midnight that day Acosta sent AUSA A. Marie Villafaña “[s]mall edits” to the version she had called final, substituting language that required Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing recommendation to the state court rather than binding the State Attorney or the state judge; Villafaña circulated the revised text that morning and the signed agreement was returned that afternoon.12 The recitals provide that “on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida.”2

The agreement required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the pending indictment charging one count of solicitation of prostitution under Fla. Stat. § 796.07 and to an information charging a registrable offense, described in the agreement as “the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03” and identified by OPR as procurement of minors to engage in prostitution under the same statute.28 It required him to make a binding recommendation of “a thirty (30) month sentence”: consecutive terms of twelve and six months in county jail followed by twelve months of community control.28 In exchange the United States agreed to forgo federal prosecution in the district of Epstein, four people named as potential co-conspirators, and “any potential co-conspirators,” and provided a mechanism through which identified victims could recover damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.28 Victims were not informed of or consulted about the agreement before it was signed.8

Signatures

The copy of the agreement filed in Epstein’s 2019 bail proceedings carries three versions of the final page, signed separately by Epstein, by Gerald Lefcourt and by Lilly Ann Sanchez, each dated 9/24/07; no government representative signed any of the three: the signature block is headed with Acosta’s name and title, beneath which a line marked “By:” carries the printed name of the line prosecutor, A. Marie Villafaña, and that line is blank on all three copies.13 OPR records that the final agreement as signed by Epstein, his attorneys Lefcourt and Sanchez, and Villafaña contained the operative terms, and that Villafaña told defense counsel she would sign and return a copy when she received the originals.1412 OPR states that Acosta “did not sign the NPA.”3

The co-conspirators clause

The clause on agreement page 5 of 7, which is page 6 of the filed exhibit, names Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova and reads, in the page image:2

In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.2

OPR found that “[i]mportant provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all ‘potential co-conspirators,’ were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors.”15 Acosta told OPR that he did not recall the provision or any discussion of it, and speculated that if he read it he likely assumed the line prosecutor and her supervisor had “thought this through” and “addressed it for a reason.”16 First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman told OPR he had understood the provision to protect the people named in it, and that it never occurred to him that it was directed at any of the high-profile figures later linked to Epstein.16 The West Palm Beach manager called the provision “highly unusual” and said he had “no clue” why the office agreed to it.16

Confidentiality

Term 13 provides: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record.”2 When defense counsel asked the office to “do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public,” Acosta replied that the agreement “already binds us not to make public except as required by law under [the Freedom of Information Act],” and asked, “[W]hat more does he want?”12 The agreement was filed under seal with the state court; after victims and news media sued in Florida courts for its release, a state judge ordered it made public in September 2009.817

After signing

Epstein did not plead guilty for another nine months, during which his attorneys sought to change the agreement’s terms and to have senior Justice Department officials set it aside.8 The first dispute concerned selection of an attorney representative for the victims, and led Sloman and defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz to negotiate an addendum.18 On October 29, 2007 Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and Sanchez signed the addendum; Villafaña’s name was printed as the office’s representative, but at her request Sloman signed it for her on behalf of the office.18 Acosta did not sign the addendum.1819 The filed copy of the addendum, like the agreement itself, shows the government’s signature line blank; a separate affirmation page, signed by Epstein and dated 12/7/07, re-affirms “the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007.”1920

The October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting

Acosta and Lefkowitz met for breakfast on October 12, 2007 at a Marriott hotel in West Palm Beach, arranged by email the previous day; contemporaneous records show Acosta was already scheduled to be in West Palm Beach for a press event and a bar conference and stayed at the hotel overnight.21 In an October 23, 2007 letter Lefkowitz wrote that at the meeting Acosta had assured him the office would not intervene with the State Attorney’s Office, would not contact identified individuals, potential witnesses or potential civil claimants, and would not intervene regarding Epstein’s sentence so long as it did not violate state law.21 Two days after receiving that letter Acosta revised a draft response prepared by Sloman, adding the word “inaccurate” to describe those claims; the draft stated that “[s]uch a promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this,” and OPR did not find evidence that it was ever sent.21 In a December 2007 letter to Sanchez, Acosta wrote that he had “sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach … in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process.”21 The letter itself is in the release, and the clauses on either side of that quotation are what make it a disputed account rather than a recollection.22 Acosta was answering Lefkowitz’s letter of 11 December by name:

Your December 11th letter states that as a result of defense counsel objections to the appointment process, the USAO proposed an addendum to the Agreement to provide for the use of an independent third party selector. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowledge of defense counsel objections, I sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an October meeting in Palm Beach. I did this in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a litigious selection process. It was only after I proposed this change that Mr. Lefkowitz raised with me his enumerated concerns.22

⚠ This sits against the account given three paragraphs above, which has the first dispute over the attorney representative leading Sloman and Lefkowitz to negotiate an addendum. On that account the addendum answered the dispute; on Acosta’s it preceded it. The page states both and adopts neither: they are two participants’ accounts, one contemporaneous and one reconstructed by investigators, and the release does not settle which is right. Nor does the letter say the October meeting was the 12 October breakfast described here: it says only “an October meeting in Palm Beach”, and this page does not make the identification for it. Acosta told OPR he did not remember the meeting, and said the press account “was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast,” which was inaccurate because the agreement had been signed weeks earlier.21 OPR found no evidence that the meeting “led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein.”4

Responding on November 30, 2007 to a further letter from Starr, Acosta wrote, over his own typed name: “please provide us with a definitive statement, signed by your client, of his intention to abide by each and every term of the Agreement by close of business on Tuesday, December 4, 2007,” with a plea and sentencing “no later than December 14, 2007,” warning that otherwise “we will deem the agreement to be rescinded and will proceed with the prosecution. There must be closure in this matter.”23 Epstein did not plead guilty until June 30, 2008, almost seven months after the stated deadline, and the agreement was not rescinded.8

Defense counsel continued to contact Acosta directly: on January 30, 2008 Lefkowitz emailed him a “heads up” about a civil suit announced against Epstein, and Acosta forwarded the message to a line prosecutor with the single word “Fyi.”24

Epstein pleaded guilty in state court on June 30, 2008 and was sentenced the same day to consecutive terms of twelve and six months’ incarceration followed by twelve months of community control.8 He was approved for the county sheriff’s work release program and from October 2008 spent twelve hours a day at an entity he had recently incorporated, received “gain time” for good behavior, served less than thirteen months of the eighteen-month jail term, and was released to home detention on July 22, 2009.17

Recusal and departure from the office

On December 8, 2008, while Epstein was serving his state sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving Kirkland & Ellis, the firm then representing Epstein, because he had begun discussing possible employment with it.1 Sloman thereafter became the senior official supervising the matter.1 Acosta left the office in June 2009 and became Dean of Florida International University College of Law.1

The victims’ rights litigation

A victim identified as “Jane Doe” petitioned the federal district court in the Southern District of Florida on July 7, 2008, alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by resolving the investigation without consulting victims.8 On February 21, 2019 the court granted the petitioners partial summary judgment, ruling that the government violated the Act in failing to advise victims of its intention to enter the agreement.6 The court found that letters sent to victims after the agreement was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, “mislead [sic] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility,” and highlighted the inequity of the office’s failure to communicate with victims while engaging in “lengthy negotiations” with Epstein’s counsel and assuring the defense that the agreement would not be “made public or filed with the court.”6 OPR later determined that none of the subject attorneys was responsible for those letters, which were sent by an FBI administrative employee using standard form language and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.5 See the CVRA litigation.

The OPR investigation

OPR opened its investigation after the Miami Herald’s November 28, 2018 report, on a December 3, 2018 request from the chairman of a Senate Judiciary oversight subcommittee, and broadened it after the February 21, 2019 CVRA ruling.2526 It reviewed hundreds of thousands of records, conducted more than sixty witness interviews, and identified Acosta, three former office supervisors and the line AUSA as subjects; all five cooperated, provided written responses, were interviewed under oath, and commented on the draft report.26 The report is dated November 2020.27

Findings on the agreement

OPR concluded that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in developing, negotiating and approving the agreement; that Acosta’s decision not to initiate a federal prosecution was within the scope of his authority; and that it found no evidence the decision “was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations.”4 It noted that Acosta had resisted defense efforts to return the matter to the state without conditions and had refused to eliminate the incarceration and sex-offender registration requirements.4

OPR nonetheless concluded that “Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment.”4 In its summary: “Acosta’s application of federalism principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.”4 Section V of the report, “Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment by Resolving the Federal Investigation Through the NPA,” finds that his application of Petite policy principles was flawed, the policy having not applied because the state case was still pending, a point Acosta acknowledged to OPR, and that the resulting agreement “was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage.”15 Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was “an important federal interest.”15 Acosta’s own explanation, as OPR records it, was that absent intervention by his office the state prosecution would have become final, that it was therefore “prudent” to apply Petite policy analysis, and that “the federal responsibility” was to serve as a “back-stop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice”; he said the police department would not have brought the case to the FBI had the State Attorney pursued charges requiring incarceration, and that his office could avert a “manifest injustice” by forcing the state to jail Epstein and require him to register.9 OPR called that reasoning “flawed and unduly constricted,” on the ground that the Petite policy does not require federal restraint where no state prosecution has been completed.9

Findings on victim notification

OPR concluded that Acosta exercised poor judgment a second time in that, after the agreement was signed, he “elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing” and “failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing.”5 The report states that his decision “left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation” and “created the misimpression that the Department intentionally sought to silence the victims.”5 Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of the plea that victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak, and that he expected the state would have “notified [the victims] that that was an all-encompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding”; OPR found no evidence that he verified that understanding with his own staff or with the State Attorney, and no evidence that he acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the plea hearing.10 OPR found no evidence that the lack of consultation before the agreement was signed was for the purpose of silencing victims.45

The “intelligence asset” question

Addressing press reports, as OPR summarized them, that Epstein had been released early for cooperating in a financial investigation or had been an “intelligence asset,” OPR recorded that “Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an ‘intelligence asset.’”28 Asked about his answer on the point at his 2019 press conference, “Acosta stated to OPR that ‘the answer is no,’” and was told OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information.28 OPR found no evidence that Epstein was a cooperating witness or intelligence asset, that anyone believed he was, or that he received any benefit on that basis.28

The claim OPR was addressing reached federal prosecutors in a form the release holds. On July 9, 2019, three days after Epstein’s arrest, a Daily Beast feature was circulated by email inside the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, addressed to the United States Attorney, under the subject line “Acosta” and the covering words “For our next discussion:”.29 The passage pasted into that message reports that Epstein’s name “had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary”; that Acosta was asked, “Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?”; and that he had explained that he cut the non-prosecution deal because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” the passage has him telling his interviewers in the Trump transition. It records that the Labor Department had no comment when asked about it.29 ⚠ That is a reporter’s account, on sources the article does not name, of what a nominee is said to have told interviewers in a private meeting. It is not a record of the meeting.

OPR put the claim to Acosta directly, and the transcript of that interview is in the release. The questioner returned to a press-conference question Acosta had not clearly answered there, quoting it as whether he was “ever made aware that Mr. Epstein was ‘an intelligence asset of some sort.’” Acosta answered, “I’m not aware of it.” Asked whether defense counsel had ever said to him that Epstein had that status, he answered, “Not to my recollection.” He added that he did not know where press reports “from multiple media outlets that I told someone that he was an intelligence asset” had come from, and that although he did not think it right to comment publicly on “what classified information I may or may not know,” “the answer is no, and no”; asked whether that was without reservation, he repeated, “No, and no.”30

The exchange that follows in the same transcript records a gap in the Department’s own holdings. The questioner told Acosta that OPR had obtained many electronic records, “mainly e-mails,” from the Department, and then: “The Department of Justice, however, has not been able to find/recover a portion of your e-mail account as U.S. Attorney that contained e-mails received by you between May 26th, 2007, and March 2008.” Acosta answered, “Correct.” The questioner described those dates as “rather relevant to this” and the missing stretch as a “gap in the holdings”, and noted that the law requires U.S. Attorney records to be maintained and archived.31 The non-prosecution agreement was signed on September 24, 2007, within that period.712

2019

After the Miami Herald report, media and congressional attention focused on Acosta as the official responsible for the agreement.6 On July 10, 2019, four days after Epstein’s arrest in the Southern District of New York, he held a televised press conference at which he said the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office “was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing,” and argued that his office had instead obtained a resolution that jailed Epstein, required him to register as a sexual offender, and gave victims a means of obtaining damages.6 He submitted his resignation as Secretary of Labor to the President on July 12, 2019, effective July 19, explaining in a brief oral statement that continued media attention on his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor Department.6251

The immunity clause after Epstein’s death

Ghislaine Maxwell moved to dismiss her 2020 superseding indictment in the Southern District of New York on the ground that the co-conspirators clause immunized her as a third-party beneficiary.32 Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion on April 16, 2021.33 The Second Circuit affirmed on September 17, 2024, holding: “We hold that Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY.”34 Maxwell’s petition for a writ of certiorari, filed April 10, 2025, reproduced the agreement and excerpts of the OPR report as appendices.35

Coverage

  • Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice,” Miami Herald, November 28, 2018. OPR records that the paper reported Acosta had made an extraordinary agreement letting Epstein avoid federal prosecution through a state plea, that the government immunized his co-conspirators, and that the terms were concealed from victims.17
  • OPR’s footnote to the resulting coverage lists Ashley Collman, “Stunning new report details Trump’s labor secretary’s role in plea deal for billionaire sex abuser,” The Business Insider, November 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, “New Focus on Trump Labor Secretary’s role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse,” NBC Nightly News, November 29, 2018; Anita Kumar, “Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report,” McClatchy Washington Bureau, November 29, 2018; and Emily Peck, “How Trump’s Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser,” Huffington Post, November 29, 2018.6

Footnotes

  1. OPR Report, full text filed as Government Exhibit 3, Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, April 16, 2021, narrative pp. 4–5. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12

  2. Non-Prosecution Agreement, September 2007, filed as Exhibit 1 to Document 6-1 in United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.), July 11, 2019. Authority clause at agreement p. 2 of 7 (p. 3 of the filed exhibit); charges and sentence at agreement p. 3 of 7 (p. 4 of the filed exhibit), terms 1 and 2; co-conspirators clause and term 13 at agreement p. 5 of 7 (p. 6 of the filed exhibit); quoted passages read from the page image. ⚠ CLARIFIED 2026-09-25: this footnote previously gave only the agreement’s own folio, with no sheet index. The pin has not been moved: the folios it gave were and are correct. What was missing was the second numbering, which its sibling footnote on the agreement’s own page already carried in this form, and without which a reader following the citation lands one sheet early and no instrument can bind it. The exhibit is 15 sheets; the agreement it encloses is 7 pages; a cover sheet reading “EXHIBIT 1” sits in front, so exhibit sheet = agreement folio + 1 throughout. ⚠⚠ CORRECTED 2026-09-25: this footnote previously said “This was NOT settled at the image, and nobody can settle it at the image.” That was false and is withdrawn — it has now been settled at the image. https://epstein-data.com/pdf/DOJ-OGR-00000290.pdf does return HTTP 403 Forbidden, but that 403 is byte-identical — 111 bytes, application/xml — for an identifier that exists nowhere, so it reports nothing about any sheet. The site serves the run itself at https://epstein-data.com/non-efta-docs/dojogr-pdfs/DOJ-OGR-00000290.pdf: HTTP 200, application/pdf, 8,228,539 bytes, 15 sheets, with no credential and no header of any kind. This pass opened sheet 1, the cover reading EXHIBIT 1 under the stamp Page 1 of 15, and sheet 6, which carries Page 6 of 15 over the agreement’s own footer Page 5 of 7 and is the sheet bearing the “potential co-conspirators” passage. The correspondence stated above is therefore confirmed at the image, as well as on the ECF header stamp, which is machine-set filing text rather than an extraction of prose, and which prints on every sheet: sheet 2 carries “Page 1 of 7”, sheet 6 carries “Page 5 of 7” and is the sheet bearing “potential co-conspirators”, sheet 7 carries “Page 6 of 7”, and sheets 8, 9 and 10 each carry “Page 7 of 7”, which independently corroborates the three signature pages described at 13. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  3. OPR Executive Summary, p. ix, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. OPR Executive Summary, p. x, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  5. OPR Executive Summary, p. xi, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. OPR Executive Summary, p. iv and n.4, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  7. OPR Executive Summary, p. i, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  8. OPR Executive Summary, p. ii, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  9. OPR Report, narrative p. 172. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. OPR Report, narrative p. 270. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2

  11. Letter, R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, to Kenneth W. Starr, Esq., November 30, 2007, p. 3, narrating the September 7, 2007 meeting; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659896 p.3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. OPR Report, narrative pp. 84–85, section VII, “September 24, 2007: Acosta Makes Final Edits, and the NPA Is Signed.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  13. Non-Prosecution Agreement, three versions of the signature page (p. 7 of 7) at pp. 8, 9 and 10 of the filed exhibit, each dated 9/24/07 and read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2

  14. OPR Report, narrative p. 85. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩

  15. OPR Report, narrative pp. 169–171, section V. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. OPR Report, narrative p. 81. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. OPR Executive Summary, p. iii, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. OPR Report, narrative p. 93. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  19. Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement, signature pages at pp. 12, 13 and 14 of the filed exhibit, dated 10/29/07 and read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2

  20. Affirmation of Jeffrey E. Epstein, p. 15 of the filed exhibit, signature dated 12/7/07 and transmitted by fax the same day; read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩

  21. OPR Report, narrative pp. 89–90, section VIII.B, “October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast.” https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  22. Letter, R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, to Lilly Ann Sanchez of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., “DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE”, December 19, 2007, its first sheet, footnote 1. EFTA00209047 p.38. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet prints “the USAO” in full and “our silence should not be interpret as agreement” — the missing “-ed” is the letter’s own and is not corrected here. Sua sponte is italicised on the sheet; the extraction renders it “suo sponte” and mangles the surname, and those are extraction artefacts. The same footnote records that “Over the past two weeks, we have received several hundred pages of arguments and exhibits from defense counsel.” The letterhead prints telephone and facsimile values, which are not reproduced. The wider letter, and Lefkowitz’s 11 December account that it answers, are set out at Jay Lefkowitz. ↩ ↩2

  23. Letter, R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, to Kenneth W. Starr, Esq., November 30, 2007, pp. 5–6, quotations and signature read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659896 pp.5–6. ↩

  24. Email, Jay Lefkowitz to “Acosta, Alex (USAFLS),” January 30, 2008, 13:07, forwarded by Acosta the same day at 1:20 p.m.; the reply and the names of the victim and the recipient prosecutor are redacted on the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00013721 ↩

  25. OPR Executive Summary, p. v, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2

  26. OPR Executive Summary, p. vi, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2

  27. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, Executive Summary of Report, November 2020, filed as Exhibit D to Document 138-4 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, February 4, 2021; cover page, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩

  28. OPR Report, narrative p. 169 and n.244. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  29. Email, subject “Acosta”, July 9, 2019, 17:34:55 UTC, sent within the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to the United States Attorney, one sheet, pasting the text of a Daily Beast feature beneath the line “For our next discussion:”. EFTA00076059 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The feature is cited here as it stands in the release, inside the office’s own correspondence, rather than as a press link. The sheet carries no byline for the feature, and the passage names no source for its account of the transition interview. ↩ ↩2

  30. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, transcript of its interview of R. Alexander Acosta, at the transcript’s own pages 404 and 405. EFTA00009116 pp.105-106. Read at the image at 350 dpi. ⚠ Read at the image because the extraction is unreliable on these sheets: it drops the last answer on printed p.105 and damages speaker labels on printed p.106. ↩

  31. The same transcript, at its own page 406. EFTA00009116 p.107. Read at the image at 350 dpi. ↩

  32. Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement, Document 142 in No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed February 4, 2021. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002573 ↩

  33. Opinion and Order, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 2021), Alison J. Nathan, District Judge, reproduced as Appendix D to Maxwell’s petition for a writ of certiorari at 52a. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000034 ↩

  34. United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426-cr, Document 109-1, decided September 17, 2024 (2d Cir.), opinion pp. 4 and 9, read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  35. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-, filed April 10, 2025; Appendix B reproduces the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Appendix F excerpts of the OPR Report. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000034 ↩

Backlinks