U.S. Attorney’s Office
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Employee |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | A grand jury investigation related to the U.S. Attorney's Office investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | An investigation conducted by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | A Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was made between Epstein and a U.S. Attorney's Office. | N/A | View |
| 2019-06-28 | Witness contact | Additional individuals contacted the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office expressing a willingness ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021307.jpg
This document page from April 2021 describes a series of communications in May 2008 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense team and the Department of Justice. Epstein's lawyers, including Starr and Lefkowitz, raised complaints and sought meetings, while a DOJ section (CEOS), via a letter from official Oosterbaan, concluded that a federal prosecution of Epstein would not be improper, though its review was limited. The defense team continued to press its case, with Lefkowitz requesting a direct meeting with U.S. Attorney Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00019322.jpg
This document is a letter from Ms. Maxwell's legal counsel to Judge Loretta A. Preska requesting a temporary stay of the unsealing process and discussing procedural agreements. It outlines proposals to streamline the unsealing process, such as notifying non-parties simultaneously and shortening objection timelines for original parties, while also requesting a 15-page limit for future objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019321.jpg
This is a letter dated August 10, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Laura A. Menninger, to Judge Loretta A. Preska. The letter informs the court about newly discovered information that is critical to both Maxwell's civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) and her separate criminal case. Counsel explains they are currently barred from disclosing this information due to a protective order in the criminal case but intend to seek a modification of that order to share the details with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009222.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Nicole Simmons certifies that on February 9, 2022, she electronically filed 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial' and served it to the government counsel (Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz) at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009222.
DOJ-OGR-00009067.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. It certifies, under the signature of Nicole Simmons, that on January 19, 2022, "Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion for a New Trial" was electronically filed and served to the government's counsel at the U.S. Attorney's Office: Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00009901.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on March 11, 2022, for the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Signed by Nicole Simmons, it certifies that on February 9, 2022, "Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Her Motion for a New Trial" was electronically filed with the court and served to the government's counsel at the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00009758.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It certifies that on January 19, 2022, Nicole Simmons electronically filed 'Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion for a New Trial' and served it to the government's counsel: Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Andrew Rohrbach, and Lara Pomerantz of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00003182.jpg
This legal document outlines the aftermath of a November 2018 Miami Herald report concerning Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It details a February 2019 court ruling that found the government violated victims' rights, leading to the recusal of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The document then describes Epstein's subsequent federal indictment and arrest in New York in July 2019, and the resignation of government official Acosta following a press conference where he defended his role in the original NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00002967.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, presents an argument about the jurisdictional scope of plea agreements. The author refutes a defendant's motion by citing case law, primarily *Annabi*, to argue that a plea agreement only binds the specific U.S. Attorney's Office that made it, unless it explicitly states a broader scope. The document contrasts this with the defendant's argument that without an explicit limitation, an agreement should bind the entire federal government.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00004788.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, describes a court proceeding from April 9, 2019, where Judge McMahon granted the Government's application to modify a protective order. The judge found extraordinary circumstances allowed the modification, enabling the Government to obtain information for its investigation into high-profile targets, including Maxwell, without tipping them off. Consequently, the law firm BSF turned over records from a civil litigation, including transcripts of Maxwell's depositions, to the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00005586.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the defense's attempts to introduce certain evidence. The prosecution contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein is irrelevant to the current case and that the fact the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after a Florida investigation is not admissible to challenge the credibility of Minor Victim-4. The document suggests that introducing these elements would mislead the jury and open the door to rebuttal from the government about the circumstances of the prior investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00005262.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing dated October 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues they have received voluminous discovery materials (over 14,000 pages) from the government very recently (Oct 11-12), leaving insufficient time to review them before filing motions in limine. The document details the logistics of the hard drive deliveries to counsel in New York and Colorado, and to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC, while noting that some materials provided to Maxwell were incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00005203.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated October 12, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In response to a court order, the government estimates its case-in-chief will last approximately four weeks. The letter also confirms that the government has provided the defense with its exhibit list, witness list, and other required materials.
DOJ-OGR-00002875.jpg
This legal document, dated March 29, 2021, is a filing from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It clarifies the role of the FBI New York Office in an investigation conducted by the FBI Florida Office, stating that the New York office provided only 'ancillary support' by interviewing four witnesses between 2007 and 2008. The document asserts that this assistance did not make the New York office part of the prosecution team and that such inter-office cooperation is common.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017784.jpg
This document is a court filing exhibit containing an excerpt from a March 2003 Vanity Fair article. It details Jeffrey Epstein's reputation as a ruthless 'hatchet man' for Leslie Wexner and outlines several legal disputes involving Epstein, including a lawsuit over legal fees for Wexner's yacht 'Limitless', a petty suit over furnishings in a Palm Beach home, an illegal subletting scheme involving a State Department property, and a $20 million default lawsuit from Citibank. It also mentions a 1988 financial statement where Epstein claimed a net worth of $20 million.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010581.jpg
This page from a House Oversight report details the timeline between June 27 and July 11, 2008, regarding the violation of victims' rights (CVRA) in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that AUSA Villafaña failed to inform victims' attorney Edwards that Epstein's state plea would preclude federal prosecution. Consequently, victims E.W. and L.M. only discovered the plea deal was finalized during a hearing on July 11, 2008, after Edwards had filed a federal action to enforce their rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010578.jpg
This document page details the terms of a 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, which included immunity for co-conspirators like Nadia Marcinkova. It also highlights that victims E.W. and L.M. were misled by the FBI regarding the status of the investigation after a plea deal had already been reached.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013332.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing detailing attorney Bradley J. Edwards' representation of Epstein victims L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe starting in April 2008. It highlights the victims' concerns that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office were secretly arranging a plea deal with Epstein without notifying the victims, despite previous assurances in January 2008 that the investigation was ongoing and they would be consulted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013328.jpg
This document page outlines the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein starting in 2005 regarding the abuse of minors. It specifically details allegations of witness tampering, citing a 2007 incident where Epstein instructed his personal assistant, Leslie Groff, not to cooperate with FBI agents serving a subpoena at her home. The document also briefly mentions Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in the context of phone listings in an evidentiary journal.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029626.jpg
This document is a printout of a Daily Beast article discussing a widened Justice Department and FBI probe into Jeffrey Epstein for child trafficking, specifically looking into his friend Jean Luc Brunel and the MC2 modeling agency. It highlights that while Epstein cannot be prosecuted again for charges covered by his 2007 non-prosecution agreement (double jeopardy), new evidence or victims could lead to federal trafficking charges which carry a 20-year sentence. The article also criticizes the special treatment Epstein received, noting his high-profile connections and the failure to enforce mandatory psychological evaluations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014076.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (2014) analyzing Crime Victims' Rights (CVRA) and is part of a House Oversight Committee production. It specifically critiques the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein case, noting that while the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office initially notified victims (Jane Doe #1 and #2) of their rights in June 2007, the Department later 'reversed course' regarding the applicability of the CVRA during litigation. The text highlights a specific letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña to a victim sent months before the nonprosecution agreement was signed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021747.jpg
This document, likely part of a House Oversight report, contrasts the judicial criticism of the U.S. Attorney's Office for 'lack of candor' in a case involving a defendant named McDaniel with the actions of prosecutors Marie Villafaña and Alexander Acosta in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details how prosecutors negotiated a non-prosecution agreement in September 2007 that granted immunity to co-conspirators and avoided federal sex trafficking charges. The text highlights an email from Villafaña to Epstein's lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz, explicitly stating her preference not to highlight other crimes or chargeable persons to the judge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021737.jpg
This document, likely an excerpt from a report or article submitted to the House Oversight Committee, details the prosecutorial misconduct surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It contrasts a previous case (McDaniel) where prosecutors were criticized for lack of candor with the Epstein negotiations in September 2007, where prosecutors Villafaña and Acosta actively worked to hide the scope of Epstein's crimes from the judge and the public. It highlights an email where Villafaña explicitly states she prefers not to highlight other crimes or potential co-defendants to the judge during sentencing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity