U.S. Attorney
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Attorney General
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President of the United States
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
BSF
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Line Prosecutor
|
Professional superior subordinate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Acosta
|
Worked under involved with |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Mr. Dershowitz and his team investigated prosecutors and their families to disqualify them, but t... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between the prosecution team and Epstein's defense counsel where the U.S. Attorney reaffi... | Unspecified (likely U.S. At... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Removal of language limiting co-conspirator immunity to the Southern District of Florida from the... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | U.S. Attorney walking around the 8th floor on a weekend introducing himself to AUSAs. | 8th Floor, SDNY Office | View |
| N/A | Investigation | An ongoing and active investigation into associates of Mr. Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-24 | N/A | Scheduled meeting with 'ultimate decision-makers' (U.S. Attorney, FBI, etc.) to present regarding... | U.S. Attorney's Office (imp... | View |
| 2019-08-19 | N/A | U.S. Attorney requested court approval for an order of nolle prosequi. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 0019-06-01 | N/A | Events leading to the departure of the U.S. Attorney (implied firing/resignation controversy invo... | SDNY | View |
006.pdf
This document is a court order from August 5, 2008, in the case of Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra denied the defendants' motion to file documents under seal, ruling that the U.S. Attorney's objections and confidentiality clauses did not outweigh the public's right to access court records, ordering the clerk to unseal specific docket entries.
EFTA00026549.pdf
This document is a chain of emails from January 2020 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and defense counsel for a client referred to as 'Ms. [Redacted]' (likely a key Epstein associate given the context and date). The correspondence reveals urgent negotiations regarding 'proffers' and potential charges, with prosecutors stating that 'offenses can be charged now' but offering the defense a chance to present to the U.S. Attorney before a final decision. The emails specifically demand information regarding the client's recollection of observing Jeffrey Epstein in sexual activity, nude circumstances, or massages with other women/girls.
EFTA00016997.pdf
This document contains a chain of emails from January 2020 between defense counsel and federal prosecutors (likely SDNY and FBI) negotiating a high-stakes 'proffer' meeting. The prosecutors express urgency, stating that 'offenses can be charged now,' and arrange a meeting for January 24, 2020, attended by the U.S. Attorney and FBI leadership, to hear the defense's presentation before charges are filed. The correspondence explicitly discusses a client (Ms. [Redacted]) and her recollection of observing Jeffrey Epstein engaged in sexual activity or observing other women in sexually suggestive circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00023159.tif
This document outlines guidelines from the USAM (§ 9-27.220, § 9-27.230, § 9-27.240) for federal prosecutors on making decisions to commence or decline prosecution. It details factors to consider, such as federal law enforcement priorities, the nature of the offense, the deterrent effect, the offender's culpability, criminal history, willingness to cooperate, and probable sentence, as well as considerations when deferring to prosecution in another jurisdiction. Footnotes provide additional context on federal prosecutorial priorities and the impact of an offense on the victim, cautioning against the perception that restitution alone can prevent prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00000580.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a discussion between a judge and several lawyers. The conversation covers an agreement between the U.S. Attorney and defense counsel regarding whether trustees or guards will be armed. Attorney Mr. Boies, representing a victim, interrupts to clarify that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 were made by the defendant at a time when a legal proceeding was pending, contradicting a prior statement by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021984.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on December 19, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Figgins argues to the judge that an ongoing Inspector General's report investigating the Bureau of Prisons' supervision and policies is crucial for the defense. Figgins requests clarity on the status and release date of this report, citing media reports about testimony from the head of the BOP and statements by the U.S. Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021758.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intentionally drafted to provide immunity beyond the Southern District of Florida, evidenced by the removal of limiting language and its replacement with 'United States.' It also refutes the Government's claim that 'Main Justice' was not involved, citing OPR records showing Andrew C. Lourie (Deputy Assistant Attorney General) actively participated in negotiations from Washington, D.C. in September 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021685.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. It contains legal arguments rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that a U.S. Attorney's Office in one district is bound by a plea agreement made in another, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent (San Pedro v. United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 547 regarding the limitation of a U.S. Attorney's authority to their own district. A footnote discusses and dismisses Maxwell's argument regarding an 'inter-circuit exclusionary rule.'
DOJ-OGR-00021453.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal policy manual (likely the Justice Manual), filed as Exhibit SA-277 in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines the Department of Justice's protocols for 'Services to Crime Victims,' specifically detailing the responsibilities of officials to notify victims regarding their rights, the right to counsel, the right to attend trials, and schedule updates for court proceedings via the Victim Notification System (VNS).
DOJ-OGR-00021330.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines several of the Florida Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) that are applicable to attorneys practicing before the court. The page details the rules for Competence (FRPC 4-1.1), Diligence (FRPC 4-1.3), and Candor in Dealing with Others (FRPC 4-4.1), providing explanations and context from the official comments to these rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021321.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the guidelines from the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) for federal prosecutors. It specifies the conditions under which a prosecutor should commence or decline prosecution, listing seven key factors to consider when determining if a substantial federal interest is served. The document also addresses deferring to state prosecution and evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in other jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00021201.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, outlines the structure and function of the U.S. Department of Justice and its key components. It details the mission of the Department, the role of the 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices in prosecuting federal crimes, and the oversight structure involving the Attorney General. The text also highlights specialized units within the Criminal Division, such as the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), and their role in assisting federal prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00003312.jpg
This document details communications from late June 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It begins with a letter from Roth to Epstein's counsel, Starr and Lefkowitz, confirming that federal prosecution is appropriate, and then shifts to prosecutor Villafaña's efforts to enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Villafaña expresses strong suspicion that Epstein's attorneys are misrepresenting the terms of his confinement, telling her he would be in a jail 24/7 while planning for him to be at a less restrictive 'stockade', which she reports to a colleague, Sloman, as a violation of their agreement.
Unknown
Communications sought by Requests 1 and 2
Indictments
Referenced as Exhibit C
Correspondence
Referenced as Exhibit C.
Communications about the Defendant
Request 1 seeks these communications.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity