Federal Bureau of Investigation
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Association denied |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
[REDACTED]
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's Office
|
Professional collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
SARAH KELLEN
|
Subject of subpoena |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Michael S. Reiter
|
Professional referral |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Investigation subject |
2
|
2 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's Office
|
Collaborative investigation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Office of Professional Responsibility
|
Oversight review |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
LLC
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Radar Online
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Nine East 71st Street Corporation
|
Investigative subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Maple
|
Investigative subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Office of the Inspector General
|
Oversight coordination |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sprint Nextel Corporate Security
|
Correspondence |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's Office
|
Jointly investigated with |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2005-10-20 | N/A | Transfer of evidence from local police to federal authorities. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014860.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 2, 2024. It argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was limited solely to the Southern District of Florida and does not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites the 'Annabi' precedent to support the conclusion that the agreement does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg
This legal document, dated October 23, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the U.S. Government is improperly withholding critical information. The defense claims the government has not provided details about Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement or meetings held in 2016 to investigate Maxwell. The filing accuses the government of contradicting its earlier court assurances by now disclaiming responsibility for investigative files from Florida that were transferred to the New York F.B.I. office.
DOJ-OGR-00001789.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The text outlines legal precedents determining the scope of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), arguing that the prosecution is not obligated to produce records from other government agencies (like the SEC or components of the DOJ/FBI) unless a specific 'joint investigation' occurred. It cites various cases (Middendorf, Collins, Stein) to establish the criteria for what constitutes a joint investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00001616.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 13, 2020, is a portion of the prosecution's argument against a defendant's motion. The prosecution contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida does not protect the defendant from prosecution in the Southern District of New York, as she was not a party to the agreement and it does not bind other districts. A footnote reveals that since the charges were made public, the FBI has been contacted by new individuals willing to provide more evidence against the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00000990.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for bail by refuting her claim of protection under a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The prosecution asserts the NPA between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant because the defendant was not a party to it and it does not bind the current prosecuting office in the Southern District of New York. A footnote adds that new witnesses have recently come forward to the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office to provide more information against the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00000768.jpg
This legal document argues for the disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the case of Epstein and Maxwell. It contends that the extraordinary nature of their crimes, the vast number of victims, and the public interest in full accountability outweigh the usual need for grand jury secrecy. The filing emphasizes that unsealing the transcripts would help expose the full network of enablers without forcing victims to face further retaliation and that the victims themselves support this transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00000750.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 29, 2025, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It analyzes legal precedents, noting that while the Government may oppose disclosure, factors like public interest can be overriding. The document states that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot assert a position, while Defendant Maxwell intends to respond, and argues that the significant public interest in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell justifies disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00000732.jpg
This is a legal motion filed on July 18, 2025, by the Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York, requesting the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to the Jeffrey Epstein indictment. The motion follows a July 6, 2025, memorandum which concluded that an exhaustive review found no evidence to support investigating uncharged third parties. Citing public interest and transparency, the DOJ seeks to release the underlying grand jury materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000663.jpg
This court transcript from a hearing on September 3, 2019, details an argument by Ms. Comey against the court conducting its own investigation into the death of Mr. Epstein. She informs the court that an active and separate investigation is already being conducted by a grand jury, Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Southern District of New York, and the FBI. Ms. Comey asserts that such an investigation is the proper function of these entities, not the court, especially concerning uncharged matters.
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with the defendant (Epstein) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not prevent his current prosecution in the Southern District of New York. The prosecution asserts that the language of the NPA explicitly limits its scope to the SDFL and does not cover the alleged conduct or victims in New York. The filing cites specific text from the NPA and legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support its position that one U.S. Attorney's office agreement does not bind another.
DOJ-OGR-00000315.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, was limited in scope. It contends the NPA only barred federal prosecution for specific offenses within the Southern District of Florida and did not prevent the United States from bringing other federal criminal charges against him elsewhere. The document quotes the agreement to support its claim that the federal government's ability to prosecute Epstein was not fully relinquished.
DOJ-OGR-00000292.jpg
This document is a page from a legal agreement detailing a deferred prosecution deal for Epstein. Under the authority of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida for sex trafficking offenses will be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. The agreement stipulates that if Epstein violates its terms, federal prosecution can be initiated, but if he complies, all charges related to the joint FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation will be dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000291.jpg
This document is the first page of the controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines that the Palm Beach Police, State Attorney's Office, U.S. Attorney's Office, and FBI investigated Epstein for offenses occurring between 2001 and 2007. The document lists four specific federal offenses involving conspiracy, interstate commerce, and the enticement of minor females for prostitution and illicit sexual conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prevents her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The court cites *United States v. Annabi* to conclude that the NPA was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts like SDNY. Footnotes discuss legal precedents regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00030267.jpg
This is a FOI/PA Deleted Page Information Sheet from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, dated January 31, 2020, concerning Civil Action No. 17-cv-03956. The document states that a total of four pages, identified by Bates numbers 03956-11026-11027 and 03956-11028-11029, were withheld because they are duplicates of pages 10983-10984.
DOJ-OGR-00021076.jpg
This page from a 2023 court filing analyzes the text of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details that the FBI investigated Epstein for offenses committed between 2001 and 2007, and that the NPA was intended to 'globally' resolve his liability. The text explains that federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida was deferred in favor of state prosecution by Florida, provided Epstein abided by the terms.
DOJ-OGR-00020797.jpg
This page is part of a legal agreement detailing the terms under which the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, agrees to defer federal prosecution of Epstein. The deferral is in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, contingent upon Epstein's compliance with the agreement's conditions. The document also outlines the procedure for initiating federal prosecution, including a notice period, should Epstein violate the terms.
DOJ-OGR-00018645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, covering the beginning of testimony from a government witness, Stephen Flatley. After being sworn in, Flatley is questioned by attorney Ms. Pomerantz and establishes his identity and his employment with the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team in the New York division.
DOJ-OGR-00018536.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of FBI Special Agent Maguire by an attorney, Ms. Moe. Maguire testifies about their four years of experience with the FBI, their assignment to the C20 child exploitation and human trafficking task force, and confirms their participation in an FBI operation on July 6, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00022136.jpg
This document is page 2 of a deferred prosecution agreement filed in May 2021 (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT), likely concerning a Bureau of Prisons employee involved in the Epstein case (guards Tova Noel or Michael Thomas). The text outlines conditions of release, including mandatory cooperation with the FBI and DOJ-OIG regarding BOP activities, 100 hours of community service, and potential administrative termination of employment. The agreement allows for the deferral (and eventual dismissal) of prosecution if all conditions are met over a six-month period.
DOJ-OGR-00022129.jpg
This document is page two of a legal agreement, likely for deferred prosecution, filed on May 25, 2021. It outlines strict conditions for an individual, including reporting to a U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, completing 100 hours of community service, and fully cooperating with investigations by the USAO-SDNY, FBI, and DOJ-OIG, particularly concerning their employment with the Bureau of Prisons. Failure to comply could result in the USAO-SDNY revoking the agreement and proceeding with prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00022070.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 35) from April 2020 regarding the criminal case against correctional officers Noel and Thomas. It details the charges related to their failure to perform prisoner counts at the MCC SHU between August 9 and 10, 2019 (the night of Jeffrey Epstein's death) and their falsification of records. It also outlines the timeline of pretrial discovery, noting that the Government provided surveillance video, computer analysis, and interview reports to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (dated December 2, 2024) related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein was geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida and does not bind the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) or prevent them from prosecuting Maxwell. It cites the legal precedent 'United States v. Annabi' to support the claim that plea agreements do not automatically bind other districts unless affirmatively stated.
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell cannot enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Jeffrey Epstein. The reasoning is twofold: first, Maxwell was not named as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement, and second, the NPA's terms are explicitly limited to prosecutions brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) within that specific district, and therefore do not bar the current charges against her.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity