FBI
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CIA
|
Intelligence sharing |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Trent Martin
|
Law enforcement subject |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Flatley
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Cooperative data sharing |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Operational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Source
|
Informant service provider |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
Person of interest interviewee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Scott
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Official |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Robert Maheu
|
Informant operative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
U.S.
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Wild
|
Investigative law enforcement victim witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
paul krassner
|
Surveillance target |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The victims
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
NSA
|
Jurisdictional investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
James A. Baker
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie
|
Investigator witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
[REDACTED]
|
Professional collaboration |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
NSA
|
Inter agency communication |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
STEPHEN FLATLEY
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pro-PRC organizations
|
Surveillance adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Requester agency |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | OPR working with FBI Palm Beach Office, including case agents and Victim Witness Specialist, to o... | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI search of Automated Case Support system and documentation of victim notification system. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Meeting | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Notification received by OPR from FBI and USAO regarding federal investigation and Epstein's plea. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI investigation into Epstein's international sex trafficking organization was quashed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Federal investigation began, contemporaneous with news reports of Epstein's arrest. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims provided OPR with information regarding their contacts with the FBI and USAO. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rothstein's firm was raided. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI produced a criminal complaint related to Alfredo Rodriguez. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell ('green lighting ab arrest'). | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Launch of counterintelligence investigation into Trump campaign | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | Defense counsel review of nude images | FBI | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI interview of a victim pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation o... | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Epstein investigation | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transfer of evidence | New York Office (NYO) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Investigation / Agency Interviews | MCC New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search of Epstein's island | Little St. James | View |
| N/A | N/A | Seizure of images from Jeffrey Epstein's residences pursuant to search warrants. | New York and Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned Arrest upon return to US | Unspecified Airport | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closure of federal investigations by FBI and U.S. Attorney | Federal jurisdiction | View |
| N/A | N/A | FBI Raid / Evidence Collection | Epstein Residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of new victims | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government interviews with accusers | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening of the case/Investigation | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Referral of case to FBI | Palm Beach | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a broad interpretation of the prosecution's 'Brady obligations.' It asserts that the government must disclose not only admissible favorable evidence but any information that could lead to such evidence, resolving any doubts in favor of disclosure to the defense. The document cites several legal precedents, including Safavian and Paxson, to support the claim that the pretrial standard is simply whether evidence is favorable, not whether it would change the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00022034.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on April 9, 2020, in a criminal case on behalf of Defendant Thomas. The defense requests the court to compel the prosecution to turn over various documents and reports, arguing they contain exculpatory evidence under Rule 16 and Brady-Giglio. The motion claims the defendant's alleged criminal conduct was a result of widespread practices and policies within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and that the government has unfairly refused to disclose this relevant information.
DOJ-OGR-00022031.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 9, 2020, is a motion seeking to compel the government to produce discovery related to the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The motion argues that multiple federal agencies, including the DOJ, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service, have conducted investigations, and the defense is entitled to reports and documents from these inquiries. The document cites various news reports and a previous court order from November 2019 to support its claim that the government has failed to meet its disclosure obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00021997.jpg
This document is a legal letter filed on January 27, 2020, by Montell Figgins, the attorney for Michael Thomas (a prison guard charged in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's death). Figgins states his intent to file a motion for dismissal based on selective prosecution and argues that the defense needs more time and access to Inspector General reports to prepare for trial, noting the government took over 90 days to investigate the incident. The letter is copied to prosecutors and counsel for the co-defendant, Noel.
DOJ-OGR-00021754.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should be considered a third-party beneficiary of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text cites legal precedents regarding plea agreements and asserts that the NPA's immunity for 'potential co-conspirators' extends to Maxwell for offenses between 2001 and 2007. A footnote highlights that Florida investigators interviewed victims Carolyn, Virginia Roberts, and Annie Farmer, establishing an overlap between the Florida investigation and the SDNY trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes claims made by Maxwell regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that Maxwell's assertion of senior-level Justice Department approval for the NPA is a mischaracterization of the record, stating that any review by offices like the Deputy Attorney General's occurred only after the NPA was signed and in response to Epstein's actions, and did not constitute an approval of the agreement itself.
DOJ-OGR-00021546.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The hearing took place on June 28, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document lists the legal counsel for both the prosecution and the defense, as well as other individuals present at the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021492.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, states that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) received information from or about 13 victims. This information pertained to their contacts with the FBI and USAO, and notifications they received about the federal investigation, Epstein's state plea, and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before it was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021491.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice report detailing the sources of information for an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case. OPR gathered records from U.S. Attorney's Offices in Florida and Georgia, as well as public records from Florida law enforcement agencies. The investigation also involved extensive interviews with subjects, and over 60 witnesses, including former high-ranking DOJ officials like Mark Filip and Alice Fisher, and communications with attorneys for Epstein's victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the conduct of Alexander Acosta and the USAO regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) due to legal ambiguities at the time, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing. The report also details how an FBI administrative employee sent misleading form letters to victims stating the case was still 'under investigation' without proper coordination with prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021485.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report concerning the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a 2018 Miami Herald article, the OPR investigated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The report identifies five former federal prosecutors, including former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, as subjects of the investigation for their roles in negotiating and executing the controversial deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021484.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report criticizes the USAO and FBI for their lack of coordination and transparency in communicating with victims during the Epstein investigation, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It notes that the failure to inform victims created a public perception of collusion and ignored the victims' rights under the recently passed CVRA. The report highlights contradictory communications sent to victims, including instances where the FBI stated the case was under investigation while the USAO stated it was resolved via a state guilty plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021482.jpg
This document, part of a legal filing, details findings from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the government's treatment of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred, the government failed to treat victims with forthrightness and sensitivity, particularly by not providing timely and clear information about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The report uses the case of a victim named Wild to illustrate a series of confusing and inconsistent communications from government agents, and also notes an instance where prosecutor Sloman refused to provide information to another victim's attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021481.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the conduct of prosecutor Villafaña in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It concludes that Villafaña did not violate professional conduct rules by failing to inform victims' attorney (Edwards) of the full Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prior to the state plea hearing, noting she was following management directives from U.S. Attorney Acosta to delay notification. The report discusses the tension between victim notification and the risk of creating impeachment evidence, and references a complaint by Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr, regarding victim contact.
DOJ-OGR-00021479.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report analyzing whether prosecutor Villafaña violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) by failing to disclose the existence of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and attorney Edwards. It references specific interviews conducted by Villafaña on January 31 and February 1, 2008, where she allegedly stated the matter was 'under investigation' despite knowing the NPA was signed. The text cites the Eleventh Circuit's concern that the government's actions moved from passive nondisclosure to active misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.
DOJ-OGR-00021477.jpg
This legal document details communications surrounding the federal investigation of Epstein, focusing on the information provided to victims and their attorney, Bradley Edwards. Investigator Villafaña told victims and Edwards that the investigation was active and ongoing, while officials like Sloman and Acosta were concerned that disclosing the terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), including a potential $150,000 payment, would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses in a potential trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021476.jpg
This document details how prosecutor Villafaña and other federal agents handled communications with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Fearing that knowledge of potential monetary damages could compromise witness credibility, Villafaña deliberately withheld specific details about the NPA from victims during interviews in 2007 and 2008. The text contrasts the official explanation given to victims with the reality of the agreement, as later attested to by victim Courtney Wild.
DOJ-OGR-00021466.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the FBI's use of the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send form letters to victims between 2006 and 2008, which stated the case was 'under investigation.' The report concludes that while technically not false, these letters were misleading because they failed to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) reached in 2007, leading victims (such as CVRA petitioner Wild) to believe a federal prosecution was still actively moving forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021465.jpg
This document details the continued federal investigation into Epstein after the signing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines specific actions taken by prosecutor Villafaña, the FBI, and CEOS between late 2007 and mid-2008, such as interviewing new victims and preparing for trial, to demonstrate that the investigation remained active. The document asserts that communications to victims stating the case was 'currently under investigation' were accurate, despite potentially being misleading.
DOJ-OGR-00021463.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report analyzing the government's conduct during the Epstein investigation. It details how the FBI sent standard form letters to victims in 2007 and 2008 stating the case was 'under investigation' despite a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) having already been signed in September 2007. The report concludes these inconsistent messages misled victims, though OPR found no evidence that officials Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with specific intent to silence them.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021441.jpg
This legal document details events from August to September 2008 concerning the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on victim notifications. It describes how the Federal Court ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) to disclose the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to victims and their attorneys. The document also discusses the USAO sending a revised notification letter after Epstein's attorneys objected to language in a previous version.
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021434.jpg
This legal document details conflicting accounts regarding the notification of victims for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008, state plea hearing. It focuses on communications between prosecutor Villafaña, investigator Reiter, and victim's attorney Edwards, particularly concerning a list of victims that was created and subsequently destroyed. The document highlights discrepancies in recollections from various depositions and declarations about what information was shared and with whom, forming a key part of the CVRA litigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity