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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Interview | The subject must agree to meet with and be interviewed by the USAO-SDNY, the Federal Bureau of In... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Dr. Loftus consulted with various government agencies involved in the case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search warrants served on RRA offices; 40+ boxes obtained by DOJ | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice seized 40+ boxes of documents from RRA offices | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Investigative work conducted by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Department of Justice sequestered about 13 boxes of documents related to the Epstein case from RR... | RRA Offices | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Investigative work conducted into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Consultation | Witness Loftus consulted with various government agencies at different points in their career. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Department of Justice's practice of limiting plea agreements to specific USAOs ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-25 | Legal notice | The Department of Justice sent a notice advising that the Court was seeking letters from victims ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-18 | Legal filing | The Department of Justice filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Ghi... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-07-18 | N/A | Filing of United States' Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Memorandum issuance | The [DOJ] and [FBI] issued a memorandum describing a review of investigative holdings relating to... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-06 | N/A | Issuance of Memorandum regarding Epstein investigation review | Unknown | View |
| 2025-07-06 | Publication | The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum about their inv... | N/A | View |
| 2021-07-02 | N/A | Anticipated production of Epstein FOIA documents to The Times. | New York | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 204 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Release of OPR investigation report concerning Epstein investigation | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Release of DOJ OPR report on Epstein investigation. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2019-08-14 | N/A | Legal hold distributed by counsel regarding inmate death. | N/A | View |
| 2019-03-05 | N/A | Just days before a Friday deadline, the Justice Department reassigned the Epstein victims' rights... | Atlanta | View |
| 2018-05-10 | N/A | Department of Justice agreed to brief House Intelligence Committee members. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Publication revision | The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual (USAM) was revised and renamed the Justice Manual. | N/A | View |
| 2017-07-26 | Document production | This document is page 1 of a 95-page set produced in response to Public Records Request No. 17-295. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021528.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order (filed Feb 25, 2022) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The text outlines the legal standards under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the 'McDonough' test regarding juror nondisclosure during voir dire. Specifically, the court is analyzing whether 'Juror 50' failed to answer honestly about past sexual abuse, though the court notes in a footnote that it is not yet resolving whether a new trial is merited at this specific juncture.
DOJ-OGR-00021516.jpg
This document is a placeholder page within a court filing, marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]'. It contains header information referencing Case 22-1426 and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on 06/29/2023 and 04/16/21 respectively.
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-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-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-00021449.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (labeled SA-273 and appearing to be part of an appendix) in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines 'Chapter Three, Part Two: Applicable Standards' and specifically quotes the text of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The text details the eight specific rights afforded to crime victims, the Department of Justice's obligation to accord those rights, and the legal definition of a 'crime victim.'
DOJ-OGR-00021448.jpg
This document is a single, intentionally blank page from a larger legal filing. It includes metadata from two court cases: Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, where Document 204-3 was filed on April 16, 2021, and Case 22-1426, related to a document filed on June 29, 2023. The page is marked with a Department of Justice Bates number, DOJ-OGR-00021448.
DOJ-OGR-00021443.jpg
This legal document details the Department of Justice's (DOJ) process of interpreting and revising the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) guidelines between 2010 and 2011. The central issue was the point at which victims' rights become active, with the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) maintaining that rights only vest after formal criminal charges are filed. This position was challenged in a November 2011 letter by CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl, who argued to Attorney General Eric Holder that the DOJ's 2011 revised guidelines conflicted with the law's plain language by not extending rights to victims before charges were filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ report (likely OGR) detailing the period between January and June 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes the legal tug-of-war between Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta) regarding victim notification under the CVRA, with the defense arguing federal notification was inappropriate. It also details internal DOJ reviews of the case evidence by senior officials (Senior, Oosterbaan, Mandelker, Fisher) which delayed the plea deal, while prosecutor Villafaña and the FBI continued to investigate potential federal charges in anticipation of an NPA breach.
DOJ-OGR-00021389.jpg
This document is page 189 of a Department of Justice OPR report (Chapter Three) reviewing the government's interaction with victims in the Epstein case. It outlines the factual background of victim rights legislation, specifically the history leading to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) of 2004, and sets the context for analyzing the USAO and FBI's communications with victims surrounding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text details various legislative acts from 1982 to 2004 aimed at protecting crime victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021387.jpg
This document is page 187 of an OPR report (filed in 2021/2023 court cases) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The report concludes that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by pursuing a state-based resolution and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) without adequate consideration or team consultation, allowing Epstein to manipulate the process. It highlights that the decision left victims, the public, and federal agents (FBI and line AUSAs) dissatisfied with the justice achieved.
DOJ-OGR-00021382.jpg
This legal document analyzes decisions made by U.S. Attorney Acosta that created difficulties in enforcing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It details the USAO's internal debate on whether to declare a breach of the agreement and highlights a critical change Acosta made to the NPA's language, weakening the requirement for Epstein to enter a guilty plea. The document suggests these decisions made it significantly harder for the USAO to prove Epstein was intentionally failing to comply with the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021373.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing prosecutor Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's concerns about federalism led him to craft a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that paradoxically intruded more on state authority and had negative consequences due to the federal team's unfamiliarity with the state court system. This lack of familiarity, a concern raised by fellow prosecutor Villafaña, resulted in unforeseen outcomes like Epstein obtaining work release, which was contrary to the prosecutors' intent.
DOJ-OGR-00021356.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing a chronology of meetings between the US Attorney's Office (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It includes a table listing specific dates between February 2007 and January 2008, participants from both sides (including Acosta, Dershowitz, Starr, and Black), and the purpose of each meeting, such as discussing investigation improprieties, the NPA term sheet, and state plea provisions. The text specifically notes Alex Acosta's limited attendance at pre-NPA meetings and mentions a breakfast meeting between Acosta and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
This document is page 135 (SA-161) of a legal report or filing (likely a DOJ OGR review) analyzing the conduct of U.S. Attorney Acosta in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It argues that Acosta's decision to decline federal prosecution and enter into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) fell within the broad discretion granted to U.S. Attorneys and did not constitute professional misconduct, citing the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) and Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00021331.jpg
This document appears to be page 131 of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, filed as an exhibit in court. It analyzes Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC) 4-8.4 regarding attorney misconduct, specifically dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. A footnote clarifies that while OPR examined FRPC 4-3.8 and ABA standards, OPR does not consider ABA standards binding on Department of Justice prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021325.jpg
This document appears to be a page from an internal review (likely the OPR report on the Epstein case) analyzing the application of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM). It discusses the rules for non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), specifically noting the requirement for high-level approval if a case is of 'major public interest.' It also details conflict of interest regulations for DOJ employees and introduces the 'Ashcroft Memo' of 2003 regarding charging policies.
DOJ-OGR-00021323.jpg
This document page (p. 123 of a DOJ report, likely the OPR review of the Epstein case) details the 'Petite policy' regarding dual federal-state prosecutions and USAM provisions for plea agreements. It outlines exceptions where federal prosecution can proceed after a state case—specifically citing incompetence, corruption, or intimidation—and mandates that plea agreements must honestly reflect the seriousness of a defendant's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021300.jpg
This document outlines the negotiations between US Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (including Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz) regarding the language of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically Section 2255 concerning victim rights and monetary damages. On December 19, 2007, Acosta proposed revised language to clarify victim rights as if Epstein had been convicted federally, but the defense rejected this, arguing it was legally incongruous to fit a civil statute into a criminal plea. The document highlights the mounting frustration of the prosecution regarding what they perceived as intentional delays by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021299.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations between the USAO (Acosta) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Dershowitz) in December 2007. Following defense submissions, the USAO initiated a de novo review of evidence by Criminal Chief Robert Senior and held a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, where the defense argued state charges did not apply. The defense subsequently threatened to seek review from DOJ Washington (AAG Fisher), prompting Acosta to request an expedited review to preserve a scheduled January 4th plea date.
DOJ-OGR-00021262.jpg
This legal document details events in the Jeffrey Epstein case from 2007, focusing on the circulation of a draft non-prosecution agreement (NPA) by USAO attorney Villafaña. It describes a key meeting on September 7, 2007, where Epstein's defense attorneys, including Starr, met with prosecutors, including Acosta, to argue against federal charges. Starr specifically appealed to Acosta by highlighting their shared experience as Senate-confirmed officials.
DOJ-OGR-00021210.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing, identified as page 36 of Document 204-3 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 16, 2021. The page, which also appears as part of another case filing from June 29, 2023, is intentionally left blank and contains only header/footer information, page numbers, and a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number.
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-00021200.jpg
This document is a placeholder page labeled 'SA-26' and numbered 'xxiv' from a court filing associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case) and Case 22-1426. The page is marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]' and contains a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021200).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity