DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
BOP
|
Organizational |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeff Sessions
|
Leadership |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OLC
|
Advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew FINKELMAN
|
Liaison |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cassell (Author)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted Traveler]
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A.
|
Investigator |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
D. JOHN SAUER
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SSA [Redacted]
|
Liaison |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's office
|
Limits plea agreements to |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Professional investigative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
John Ashcroft
|
Leadership |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Collaboration |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement)
|
Non involvement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew FINKELMAN
|
Professional liaison |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Lyeson Daniel
|
Employment alleged |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
William Barr
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Institutional independence |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Traveler
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-05-01 | N/A | Publication of the latest edition of Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. | US | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Department of Justice revised the 2005 Guidelines. | Department of Justice | View |
| 2011-01-01 | Guideline revision | The Department of Justice revised the 2005 Guidelines, adding language about victim consultation ... | N/A | View |
| 2010-01-01 | Guideline update process | The Department of Justice began an effort to update its 2005 Guidelines for the CVRA, which invol... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal review | The Department of Justice reviewed the NPA on several occasions and confirmed the appropriateness... | Florida | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between DOJ and Epstein. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Signing of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Department of Justice, through the USAO-SDFL, entered into a Nonprosecution Agreement (NPA) with ... | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Nonprosecution agreement concluded with Epstein (referenced as 'more than three months' after Jun... | US | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Negotiation | Start of negotiations for the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which lasted for eight months. | N/A | View |
| 2006-05-01 | N/A | Launch of Project Safe Childhood. | Nationwide | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance to include t... | USA | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000916.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021, outlining legal issues presented for review regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that her detention conditions—including sleep deprivation, surveillance, solitary confinement, lack of food/water, and inability to review discovery documents—prevent her from effectively preparing a defense. It also challenges the trial court's decision to deny bail based on 'old, anonymous, unconfronted, hearsay accusations' from the government.
DOJ-OGR-00000913.jpg
This document is a page from Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for pretrial release, dated April 1, 2021. It details her complaints regarding harsh detention conditions, including sleep deprivation, intrusive searches, and isolation, which she argues prevent her from effectively preparing for trial. It also highlights logistical difficulties in reviewing 2.5 million pages of discovery material on a limited computer via video link with her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00000887.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering a period in August 2020. It details a judicial order denying a broad defense request regarding witness privacy and discovery materials, followed by a log of subsequent legal filings (motions, affidavits, and endorsements) between the defense team (Everdell, Pagliuca) and the prosecution (Rossmiller) regarding discovery disclosure and protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00000849.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 21-770) detailing legal proceedings in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell between July and August 2020. It includes a judicial order rejecting a defense request regarding protective orders to safeguard witness privacy, followed by a log of subsequent letter motions and responses regarding discovery disclosure filed by defense attorneys Christian Everdell and Jeffrey Pagliuca, and government attorney Alex Rossmiller. The document tracks the procedural back-and-forth regarding the handling of sensitive discovery materials and protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00000845.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (S.D.N.Y.) dated July 2020, detailing proceedings shortly after Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest. It outlines strict COVID-19 protocols for the courthouse, addresses victim notification rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sets a briefing schedule regarding detention pending trial. The document also records the official notices of appearance for Maxwell's defense team: Mark Cohen, Christian Everdell, and Laura Menninger.
DOJ-OGR-00000791.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, likely US v. Epstein) arguing the legal standards for pre-trial detention. It cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that a defendant can be detained based on dangerousness to the community or risk of flight, noting that witness tampering is sufficient grounds to revoke bail. The text outlines the four factors of the Bail Reform Act required for the release/remand analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00000771.jpg
A legal letter dated August 5, 2025 (Document 73), from the Edwards Henderson law firm to Judge Richard M. Berman regarding United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein. The firm, representing numerous Epstein survivors, writes to address the DOJ's request to unseal grand jury materials, urging the court to protect victims' rights and privacy under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The document is 'Memo Endorsed' and signed by Judge Berman.
DOJ-OGR-00000766.jpg
This is a memo dated August 5, 2025, from the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to federal judges Richard M. Berman and Paul A. Engelmayer. The firm, writing on behalf of victim Annie Farmer, responds to a notice about the potential unsealing of grand jury transcripts for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The memo strongly criticizes the U.S. Government for not pursuing further criminal investigations, despite admitting there were over a thousand victims, calling this inaction a 'cowardly abdication' of its duties.
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-00000735.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing, argues for the release of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases due to public interest and diminished privacy concerns following Epstein's death. The Department of Justice commits to redacting victim-identifying information before release. The document is submitted by Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General.
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-00000725.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Filing of Official Transcript' filed on September 3, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the case USA v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 19CR490). It notifies parties that a transcript for a hearing held on August 27, 2019, has been filed and outlines the specific rules and timelines (7 days) for requesting redactions of personal data identifiers.
DOJ-OGR-00000632.jpg
This is a court order filed on August 26, 2019, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Judge Richard M. Berman orders that the hearing scheduled for the following day, August 27, 2019, will take place in Courtroom 110 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. Note: This date is after Epstein's death (August 10, 2019), suggesting this was a procedural hearing regarding the dismissal of the indictment or related matters.
DOJ-OGR-00000572.jpg
This document is page 62 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, appearing to be a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). A prosecutor argues against the defendant's request for home detention, describing it as a 'gilded cage' and 'private jail' that necessitates actual detention. The prosecutor also clarifies that the SDNY case was independently investigated by the FBI, CBP, and NYPD, explicitly stating there was no coordination with the Southern District of Florida regarding the initiation of this specific case.
DOJ-OGR-00000533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that the timing of Epstein's arrest was suspicious relative to a CVRA filing in Florida. He asserts that high-level DOJ officials, specifically Alice Fisher (then Head of the Criminal Division) and Sigal Mandelker (currently Undersecretary of the Treasury), were directly involved in approving the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a defense attorney argues against the legality of a prosecution. The attorney claims the government is improperly relying on old evidence from a 2007 Florida case and is violating established Department of Justice procedure by prosecuting the same conduct in a second jurisdiction (Georgia) after it was handled in the first (Florida).
DOJ-OGR-00000393.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (USA v. Epstein) filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten argues that discovery is needed to determine if Florida prosecutors violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by steering victims to New York. Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller responds that the conduct is within the statute of limitations and denies allegations of a conspiracy within the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00000298.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 7 of 7) of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It features the handwritten signatures of Jeffrey Epstein and his lawyer Gerald Lefcourt, dated September 24, 2007, alongside certifications that Epstein understood the agreement's conditions. The document also lists U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and A. Marie Villafana, though their signatures are not present on this specific page.
DOJ-OGR-00000294.jpg
This page contains sections 7 through 11 of a legal agreement (likely the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement) between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the protocol for identifying victims, appointing a representative for them (paid by Epstein), and handling civil liability claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Crucially, the text states that Epstein's agreement to pay damages or waive liability contests in specific federal contexts does not constitute a general admission of civil or criminal liability.
DOJ-OGR-00000280.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 11, 2019, details the legal proceedings and agreements surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the jurisdictional complexities of his alleged crimes, the government's efforts to prosecute him despite a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) entered into with the USAO-SDFL in 2007, and the defense's arguments against the notion of flight risk, citing Epstein's history of international travel with returns to the U.S. and his intent to contest charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000214.jpg
A Certificate of Compliance filed in the Supreme Court case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. Rina Danielson certifies that the associated filing contains 3,097 words, executed and notarized on May 9, 2025. The document bears a Department of Justice footer.
DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426), bearing a DOJ stamp, dated September 17, 2024. It presents a legal argument that the 2003 PROTECT Act amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse offenses during the life of the child, applies retroactively. The text specifically concludes that this amendment applies to 'Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.'
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
This is page 15 of an appellate court decision (likely the Second Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming legal interpretations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejects Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations for Counts Three, Four, and Six, citing the 'facts of the case' approach over the 'categorical approach' and referencing testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding interstate transportation and sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00000014.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts. It cites the case of Annabi to support the claim that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting an individual named Maxwell. The document includes footnotes referencing U.S. Code to detail the powers and limitations of U.S. Attorneys, including the exception that the Attorney General can authorize them to act outside their districts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity