| 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 |
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing the scope and methodology of its investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Following a court ruling on February 21, 2019, that found the USAO violated victims' rights, OPR's investigation involved reviewing extensive records, conducting over 60 interviews, and identifying former U.S. Attorney Acosta and four other individuals as subjects of the inquiry for their roles in the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
This legal document outlines the events following Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, including the dismissal of his federal indictment in New York and the progression of a Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit in Florida. It details a specific victim's appeal and the government's arguments. The document also describes the initiation of an investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into potential prosecutorial misconduct, prompted by a Miami Herald report and a formal request from Senator Ben Sasse.
This document outlines the procedural history of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), detailing his guilty plea to state charges of procuring minors for prostitution and the subsequent sentence of 18 months in jail. It highlights the nine-month delay caused by Epstein's legal team attempting to renegotiate terms with senior DOJ officials, culminating in the Deputy Attorney General's refusal to intervene on June 23, 2008. The text also describes the immediate legal fallout, specifically a July 7, 2008 emergency petition filed by a victim ('Jane Doe') alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act because victims were not consulted about the deal.
This document is a page from a legal filing, labeled "SA-2", which appears to be an exhibit or attachment. It contains header information referencing two separate court cases: Case 22-1426 (dated 06/29/2023) and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (filed 04/16/21). The page itself is blank, aside from the case information and a Department of Justice Bates number in the footer.
This document is the cover page of a November 2020 report by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility. The report details an investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's handling of the 2006-2008 federal criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including its interactions with victims.
A court order from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dated April 28, 2023, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. granted the Government's motion to file an oversized opposition brief (up to 20,000 words) and set a new briefing schedule with deadlines in June and July 2023.
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues against the District Court's reliance on a floor statement by Senator Leahy regarding the PROTECT Act and the constitutionality of retroactive prosecution. The text contends that the court improperly applied the standards of 'Stogner v. California' (2003) to analyze Leahy's remarks, noting that Stogner was decided after the PROTECT Act was passed.
This is the conclusion page (page 36 of 37) of a legal filing submitted on October 2, 2020, by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The filing argues that the District Court's order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order should be affirmed. It is signed by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Pomerantz, Comey, Moe, and Metzner.
This document is page 13 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in case 20-3061 (Maxwell appeal). The text argues that Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial discovery materials does not meet the strict requirements of the collateral order doctrine established by the Supreme Court. The Government distinguishes Maxwell's situation from cases she cited (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs.), noting those involved intervenors in civil cases rather than parties in criminal cases.
This is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order grants the Government's proposed protective order concerning discovery materials, finding the Defense's arguments against the restrictions to be unwarranted and unprecedented. The ruling resolves docket item number 29 in the case.
This is page 7 of a court order (Document 30, filed July 2, 2020) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines strict protocols for handling 'Confidential Information,' specifically prohibiting the use of such materials for civil proceedings and restricting the Defendant from possessing hard copies unless in the presence of Defense Counsel. It also establishes that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will facilitate electronic access to discovery materials for the defendant.
This document is a cover page for 'Exhibit A' from a legal filing. It is page 12 of 13 of Document 29-12, filed on July 27, 2020, in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. A Bates number at the bottom, DOJ-OGR-00019502, indicates its origin from the Department of Justice.
This document is the first page of a Superseding Indictment (S1 20 Cr. 330) filed in the Southern District of New York against Ghislaine Maxwell. Count One charges her with Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts. The overview alleges that between 1994 and 1997, Maxwell assisted Jeffrey Epstein in recruiting, grooming, and abusing girls as young as 14, knowing they were underage.
This document contains a chronological list of docket entries from August 2020 in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The entries detail various legal motions, including requests for discovery disclosure, protective orders, and sealing of documents, alongside judicial orders and endorsements by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It concludes with a notice of attorney appearance for the USA.
This document is the final signature page (page 5) of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan orders that the Defendant may make unsealing applications to other courts if she wishes. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019444.
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, arguing that the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell is directly related to the civil case involving Virginia Giuffre, specifically citing perjury allegations. It contends that the government has a strategic interest in not intervening in the civil case regarding the unsealing of an April 2016 deposition to argue that a 'Martindell' violation was harmless. The page contains significant redactions in the center.
This document is page 19 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, likely by the prosecution or a respondent opposing an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the cases Maxwell cited in her notice of appeal are irrelevant ('inapposite') because they deal with third-party intervenors (like the press or the CFTC) seeking to modify protective orders, whereas Maxwell is a direct party to the case. It specifically distinguishes the current situation from *Brown v. Maxwell* and other precedents regarding appellate jurisdiction over protective orders.
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Affirmation) dated September 16, 2020, submitted by Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It supports the Government's motion to dismiss Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order in her criminal case (S1 20 Cr. 330). The document establishes Comey's credentials and outlines the procedural history regarding the District Court's September 2, 2020 order.
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.
This document is the cover page for Exhibit D, which is part of Document 21 filed in Case 20-3061 on September 10, 2020. The page is marked with a Department of Justice (DOJ) production number, indicating it is part of a legal proceeding.
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit C', which is part of a legal filing. It is identified as Page 1 of 4 of Document 20 in Case 20-3061, filed on September 10, 2020. The page is marked with the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00019316, suggesting it is a document from the Department of Justice.
Page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a Protective Order. It outlines strict conditions under which the Defendant and Defense Counsel may access 'Confidential Information,' prohibiting its use in civil proceedings and mandating that the Defendant only review materials under the supervision of counsel or via Bureau of Prisons protocols.
This document is page 1 of a Protective Order filed on July 30, 2020, in the Southern District of New York case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20 Cr. 330). Judge Alison J. Nathan outlines the need to restrict the dissemination of discovery materials to protect individual privacy, prevent interference with ongoing investigations, and avoid prejudicial pretrial publicity. The footer indicates this document is part of a Department of Justice release (DOJ-OGR-00019303).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity