SDFL
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
J. Sloman
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Jurisdictional conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Government districts |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Independent government agencies |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Investigative cooperation conflict |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
USANYS Attorneys
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[REDACTED] (recruiter)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SDNY (Sender)
|
Institutional |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Inter agency cooperation |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | SDFL investigation into Jeffrey Epstein | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) entered into by a separate U.S. Attorney's Office (Southern Distr... | Florida | View |
| 2020-08-31 | N/A | SDNY requests vendor info for scanning Epstein files | View | |
| 2020-08-25 | N/A | Coordination between SDNY and SDFL regarding transfer/scanning of Epstein case files. | Email correspondence | View |
| 2020-08-01 | N/A | OPR Inquiry where documents were scanned. | West Palm Beach | View |
| 2020-08-01 | N/A | OPR Inquiry gathering files | West Palm Beach | View |
| 2020-08-01 | N/A | OPR inquiry where documents were scanned and inventoried. | West Palm Beach Regional Of... | View |
| 2008-06-02 | N/A | Deadline imposed by SDFL for Epstein to comply with modified DPA terms. | N/A | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Epstein offered non-prosecution agreement by Southern District of Florida. | Florida | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with SDFL. | Florida | View |
EFTA00024472.pdf
This document is an email metadata log dated December 17, 2020, regarding a 'Question re SDFL Epstein file'. It shows correspondence involving representatives from the US Attorney's Offices in the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS) and the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The specific content of the email is not visible, only the headers and an indication of an embedded message file.
EFTA00009939.pdf
This document is an internal email thread within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated August 7, 2020. It provides a weekly update on several high-profile ongoing matters, including a premises warrant for 'RG' (possibly Rudy Giuliani or another target), a prosecution memo for the Hadden case (likely Robert Hadden) with a goal to beat the District Attorney of New York (DANY) to indictment, and a dispute involving 'Menedez'. Crucially, the email highlights anxiety regarding the lack of a decision on how to process '24 boxes of hard copy documents' from the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Epstein investigation, which the sender notes is 'keeping me up at 3am'.
EFTA00009860.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 2020 between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). The SDNY team, specifically the Public Corruption Unit supervising the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, contacted SDFL to arrange access to physical evidence files, CDs, and cassette tapes from the prior SDFL investigation into Jeffrey Epstein stored in West Palm Beach. The correspondence discusses logistics for scanning these documents, the location of the files (including those gathered for an OPR inquiry), and the impact of COVID-19 on local vendor services.
DOJ-OGR-00000341.jpg
This page from a government filing (July 12, 2019) argues before Judge Berman that a previous plea agreement in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not bind other districts or the broader 'United States' government. It further asserts that the defendant (Epstein) was the 'leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise' rather than a mere consumer, highlighting his role in recruiting, funding, and organizing the scheme across two states.
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-00021098.jpg
This legal document page describes the extensive, eight-month negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) starting in January 2007, contrasting it with a potential plea agreement that was also drafted. It emphasizes the deep involvement of multiple levels of the U.S. government, including the Department of Justice, the USAO for the Southern District of Florida, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the FBI, in the negotiation and approval process.
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
This legal document argues that the government is precluded from charging the Appellant under Count Six due to a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The argument is based on legal precedent against prosecuting the same crime in a new district and asserts that the charge, involving the trafficking of a witness named Carolyn, falls within the time period covered by the NPA. The document also references a court's finding that the NPA covers Maxwell's involvement in offenses committed by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein case concerning victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Following Epstein's death, a district court denied the victims' (petitioners') motion for remedies, such as rescinding the non-prosecution agreement, deeming the issue moot. The document also covers an appeal by a victim named Wild and the government's legal arguments that its CVRA obligations were not triggered because charges were never filed in the original district.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity