United States Attorney's Office
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jane's counsel
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Probation Office
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Markus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Reid Weingarten
|
Professional adversarial cooperative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. CHIUCHIOLO
|
Employment representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Wendy Olson
|
Employee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Victims
|
Notifier recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
State Attorney's Office
|
Professional collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Professional collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Honorable Alison J. Nathan
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Party to agreement |
2
|
2 | |
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Jointly investigated with |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
|
Collusion cooperation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Agreement participant subject to prosecution |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
|
Authority representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Collaborative investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted] (Client)
|
Proffer agreement participant |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Intervention by the United States Attorney's Office ('the feds'), who forced a deal on Epstein af... | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | The United States Attorney's Office intervened and imposed a 'federally-forced deal' on Jeffrey E... | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | A 'federally-forced deal' was imposed on Jeffrey Epstein, resulting in a jail sentence and financ... | Florida | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Off... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | A non-prosecution agreement was established where federal prosecution against Epstein is deferred... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | A deferred prosecution agreement where federal prosecution of Epstein is deferred in favor of pro... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A joint investigation into Epstein's offenses by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Unit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Potentially fraudulent claims are forwarded to law enforcement agencies for possible investigatio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of all charges against Epstein in the District if he timely fulfills all terms and cond... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement for deferred prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, contingent on ... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Epstein's offenses and background by State and Federal law enforcement agencies. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential initiation of prosecution for Epstein if he violates agreement conditions, within 60 da... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of charges against Epstein if all terms and conditions of the agreement are fulfilled, ... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2021-06-30 | Legal filing | The parties jointly submitted a letter to the Court stating they seek no redactions. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-04-20 | N/A | Filing of letter regarding redactions on ECF | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-04-14 | N/A | Production of discovery material (a photograph) by the Government to the Defense. | New York, NY | View |
| 2021-03-09 | N/A | Receipt of letter from MOJ confirming accuracy of highlighted language. | N/A | View |
| 2021-03-09 | N/A | Drafting of Government Opposition to Third Bail Motion | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-03-09 | N/A | Filing deadline for the opposition to the bail application (referenced as 'Tuesday'). | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-16 | N/A | Planned filing of the government's memorandum of law in opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail mo... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Unsealing of federal felony charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. | New York | View |
| 2020-07-02 | N/A | Filing of detention memorandum in United States v. Maxwell | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-08-30 | N/A | Grand Jury Appearance / Deadline for document production | 40 Foley Square, Room 220, ... | View |
| 2019-07-16 | N/A | Legal papers filed by the defense and the US Attorney's Office in the Epstein case | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Filing of a civil action against the US Attorney's Office under the Crime Victims' Rights Act | Unknown | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002537.jpg
This document serves as a historical summary of legal proceedings regarding Jeffrey Epstein between 2008 and 2018. It details his controversial work release program via the 'Florida Science Foundation,' the eventual unsealing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the subsequent civil litigation under the CVRA. It also covers Alexander Acosta's 2017 confirmation as Labor Secretary and the 2018 Miami Herald investigation exposing the lenient plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00002336.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated January 28, 2021. The US Attorney's office is addressing Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions to the defendant's motions (Motions 3, 10, and 11) to protect victim-witness privacy and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The government agrees to most redactions but intends to submit limited additional redactions for Motion 3 via email under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00002336(1).jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated January 28, 2021. The US Attorney's office is addressing Judge Nathan regarding proposed redactions to the defendant's motions (Motions 3, 10, and 11) to protect victim-witness privacy and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The government agrees to most redactions but intends to submit limited additional redactions for Motion 3 via email under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00001834.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government requested to delay the disclosure of sensitive witness information to the defense to protect an ongoing investigation and encourage victim cooperation. Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the request for delay but rejected the Government's proposed timeline, ordering that the materials be produced by March 12, 2021, to ensure the defense can adequately prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00022146.jpg
This is a legal document filed on December 30, 2021, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). United States Attorney Damian Williams directs that an order of 'nolle prosequi' (abandonment of prosecution) be filed regarding defendants Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, effectively dropping the charges related to Indictment 19 Cr. 830. The document includes a space for Judge Analisa Torres to order the action.
DOJ-OGR-00021520.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It certifies that Epstein understands and agrees to comply with clarifications made to the NPA. The document is signed by Epstein's attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez on October 29, 2007, and by a First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA) on behalf of A. Marie Villafaña on October 30, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021519.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. It certifies that Epstein understands and agrees to comply with clarifications to the agreement. The document is signed by Gerald Lefcourt (Epstein's counsel) on October 29, 2007, and by Jeffrey H. Sloman (FAUSA, signing for A. Marie Villafaña) on October 30, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021513.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein. While signature lines exist for Epstein, R. Alexander Acosta, A. Marie Villafaña, and Gerald Lefcourt, the only visible signature and date (9-24-07) belong to Lilly Ann Sanchez, an attorney for Epstein. The text certifies that Epstein has read, understood, and agreed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021505.jpg
This document is the first page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement concerning Jeffrey Epstein, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines that both state (City of Palm Beach Police, State Attorney's Office) and federal (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI) authorities have conducted investigations into Epstein. The federal investigation covered offenses from 2001 to September 2007, including conspiracy and substantive charges related to persuading and transporting minors across state lines for prostitution and illicit sexual conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021500.jpg
This page is part of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (R. Alexander Acosta). It outlines that federal prosecution is deferred provided Epstein pleads guilty to specific Florida state charges regarding minors and serves at least two years in prison. The document details the specific statutes violated, including lewd and lascivious battery on a child and solicitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021423.jpg
This letter, dated January 10, 2008, is from the FBI's West Palm Beach office to an individual identified as a crime victim. It serves to officially notify the victim that a case is under investigation, outlines their specific rights under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3771), and provides information on how to use the Victim Notification System (VNS) for case updates.
DOJ-OGR-00021419.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the conflict and confusion regarding victim notification in the Epstein case. It highlights discrepancies between USAO officials (Sloman, Acosta) and DOJ Criminal Division (Mandelker) regarding who decided to defer victim notification to state authorities. It also includes excerpts from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, aggressively arguing that federal victims had no standing in the state case and should not be contacted by the FBI or informed of 'fictitious rights.'
DOJ-OGR-00021417.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications within the USAO and negotiations with Epstein's defense team in December 2007. It highlights the conflict regarding victim notification, with prosecutor Villafaña expressing frustration about a 'Catch 22' situation where she felt unable to notify victims or file federal charges. The text also details draft letters sent to US Attorney Acosta and State Attorney Krischer, and meetings with defense attorneys Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz attempting to limit federal involvement.
DOJ-OGR-00021397.jpg
This is a letter dated August 28, 2006, from the FBI's West Palm Beach office to an individual identified as a potential victim in a federal crime investigation. The document outlines the victim's rights under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and provides information on the FBI's Victim Assistance Program. It also instructs the recipient on how to use the Victim Notification System (VNS) via a website and call center to receive updates on the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021378.jpg
This page from an OPR report critiques the USAO's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically regarding the failure to seize Epstein's computers. It details how prosecutors Sloman and Villafaña postponed litigation to obtain the computers, and how US Attorney Acosta signed the NPA—which effectively ended the pursuit of this critical evidence—despite likely being aware of the ongoing efforts to obtain it. The report argues the USAO gave away significant leverage and potential evidence of crimes without proper consideration.
DOJ-OGR-00021374.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It criticizes the reliance on state procedures for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), noting that the specific state charges selected allowed Epstein to avoid sex offender registration in New Mexico due to age-of-consent laws. It also details that Acosta was aware the Palm Beach Police Department distrusted the State Attorney's Office, yet he proceeded with a plea deal that relied heavily on state authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report (page 146 of the original report, filed in court in 2021 and 2023) detailing the justifications provided by USAO prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta) for entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein rather than pursuing a federal trial. The prosecutors cite significant evidentiary challenges, including unreliable witnesses, victims who 'loved' Epstein or would claim they lied about their age, and the trauma a trial would cause victims. Acosta admits his knowledge of the case facts was not 'granular' and that he relied on the diligence of his team, particularly Villafaña.
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-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021239.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility) reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. It details Alexander Acosta's justification for the non-prosecution agreement, citing the difficulty of federal trafficking prosecutions at the time (2006-2007) and a preference for state resolution. The document also discusses the legal strategy regarding Rule 11(c) binding pleas and the interaction between federal and state prosecutors, noting the State Attorney's Office desire for 'political cover'.
DOJ-OGR-00021233.jpg
This page from an OPR report details internal conflicts within the USAO in June 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña urged speed, believing Epstein was still offending, while supervisors Menchel and Lourie preferred to engage with defense counsel, believing Epstein was 'under a microscope' and unlikely to re-offend. The document details the supplementation of the prosecution memo with information on a new Jane Doe and a specific victim who had sexual contact with both Epstein and an assistant, as well as the logistics of setting up a meeting with defense counsel Sanchez.
DOJ-OGR-00021224.jpg
This document details internal DOJ conflicts and meetings with Jeffrey Epstein's defense team in early 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña disagreed with her supervisor, Lourie, about meeting defense attorneys Sanchez and Lefcourt, arguing it would reveal government strategy without gaining concessions. On February 1, 2007, the defense presented a 25-page letter attacking victim credibility, denying federal jurisdiction, and claiming violations of the Petite policy.
DOJ-OGR-00019557.jpg
This document is the final page (page 4) of a legal filing dated August 21, 2020, submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell). The Government, represented by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz, requests a date approximately 180 days later to update the Court on its position regarding the sealing of materials. The document indicates copies were sent to all counsel of record by email.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity