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-00002986.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, outlines the legislative history of the federal statute of limitations for sex offenses against minors, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3283. It details how Congress progressively extended the period for prosecution through three key acts in 1994, 2003, and 2006. The statute evolved from allowing prosecution until the victim turned 25, to allowing it for the lifetime of the victim, and finally to its current form permitting prosecution for the victim's lifetime or ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.
DOJ-OGR-00002975.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The central issue is whether a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and Epstein also prevents other districts from prosecuting Epstein's co-conspirators. The government contends that the defendant has provided no evidence to support this claim and that legal precedent within the circuit confirms that the NPA does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). It cites a 2013 brief from the USAO-SDFL, an OPR Report, and Department of Justice guidelines to establish that the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to, and did not intend to, prevent Epstein's prosecution in any other federal district. The central theme is that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and did not provide nationwide immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00002961.jpg
This document is page 27 (marked xxvi) of a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing legal statutes, rules (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence), and other academic or congressional authorities cited in the brief. The page includes a DOJ Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00002961).
DOJ-OGR-00002946.jpg
This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00032540.jpg
This document contains a page from a spiral-bound telephone message book with three specific messages from April and May 2005. One message records a call from Mr. Epstein to 'G.M' (likely Ghislaine Maxwell) on April 30. Two other messages are directed to Mr. J. Epstein on May 6, one from 'Shawna' asking to work if he is in, and another from a redacted caller.
DOJ-OGR-00032496.jpg
The document consists of four handwritten telephone message slips addressed to 'Mr. J.E.' (Jeffrey Epstein) from December 16 and 18, 2004. Callers include a realtor from Sotheby's, Jean-Luc (likely Brunel), Eva, and Natalie. Notably, Natalie's message confirms she spoke with Jean-Luc and that 'everything it's ok,' suggesting coordination between the parties.
DOJ-OGR-00032415.jpg
A page containing three handwritten phone message slips addressed to 'Jeffrey' dated January 10, 2005. The callers are identified as Jean-Luc, Darren, and Mr. Copperfield, with specific New York area code phone numbers recorded for Jean-Luc and Mr. Copperfield. The document includes Department of Justice processing marks and a date stamp from 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00004893.jpg
This document is a cover letter filed on July 2, 2021, by attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It accompanies the filing of unsealed Exhibits D, E, F, and G related to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress, in compliance with a court order dated July 1, 2021. The document bears the case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE and a DOJ bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00004892.jpg
This document is the final page (80 of 80) of a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The content is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion vacating Bill Cosby's conviction, focusing on the concept of 'fundamental fairness' regarding prosecutorial discretion and non-prosecution agreements. This precedent was likely submitted by the defense to argue regarding the validity of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) previously granted to Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00004879.jpg
This document is page 67 of a legal filing (Exhibit 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text itself contains a legal opinion analyzing the *Commonwealth v. Cosby* case, specifically discussing Bill Cosby's inability to invoke the Fifth Amendment during civil depositions after criminal charges were no longer pending. It details how Cosby was compelled to provide testimony regarding his history of supplying women with central nervous system depressants.
DOJ-OGR-00004878.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (*Commonwealth v. Taylor*) discussing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents to argue that the privilege applies broadly in both criminal and civil/administrative proceedings. The document emphasizes that the right accompanies a person regardless of the legal proceeding type.
DOJ-OGR-00004872.jpg
This document is page 60 of 80 from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 310-1) dated July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a judicial opinion (referenced as [J-100-2020]) discussing the legal principles of prosecutorial discretion and due process. It argues that while prosecutors have vast discretion in charging decisions, they must still act within constitutional boundaries, citing Commonwealth v. Kratsas (Pa. 2001).
DOJ-OGR-00004860.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court filing (Exhibit 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the content of the page is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion *Commonwealth v. Cosby* (2020), detailing the legal issues surrounding Bill Cosby's appeal, specifically concerning a non-prosecution agreement made by District Attorney Castor in 2005. This legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements was likely cited by Maxwell's defense team to argue similar issues regarding Epstein's plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00004852.jpg
This document is Page 40 of 80 from a legal filing (Exhibit) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the procedural history of Bill Cosby's appeal and the legal standards for admitting 'prior bad acts' evidence under Rule 404(b) and the 'common plan, scheme, or design' exception. It cites precedents *Commonwealth v. Miller* and *Commonwealth v. Tyson* to analyze how such evidence is used to establish identity or counter defenses of consent.
DOJ-OGR-00004841.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Cosby) filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It discusses the legal insufficiency of a 'press release' issued by D.A. Castor to grant immunity to Bill Cosby without court permission. The text cites Pennsylvania statutes regarding witness immunity and highlights the inconsistency of Castor's testimony regarding his intent.
DOJ-OGR-00004840.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit attached to Document 310-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It presents an excerpt from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby. The text analyzes whether former D.A. Castor had a valid non-prosecution agreement with Bill Cosby, concluding that the interaction was an 'unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity' that did not comply with Pennsylvania statutes. This legal precedent regarding immunity deals is likely being cited in the Maxwell/Epstein proceedings to argue the validity or invalidity of similar non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004830.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically referencing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion regarding Bill Cosby ([J-100-2020]). It details former D.A. Bruce Castor's explanation to D.A. Ferman regarding his 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby; Castor explains this was a strategic move to strip Cosby of his 5th Amendment protections, thereby forcing him to testify in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. This document was likely filed by Maxwell's defense to establish legal precedent regarding the binding nature of Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs).
DOJ-OGR-00004824.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), appearing to cite the precedent of the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby). The text details former D.A. Bruce Castor's legal strategy to issue a non-prosecution statement for Bill Cosby specifically to prevent him from invoking the Fifth Amendment in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. It includes the text of a press release announcing the conclusion of the investigation into the January 2004 allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
This document is an Opinion & Order filed on June 25, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, the law firm that represented Virginia Giuffre in a 2015 civil defamation suit against Maxwell. The document outlines the background of the civil suit, noting that Giuffre alleged defamation regarding accusations of sexual abuse by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00004743.jpg
Mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 7, 2021, affirming the District Court's orders denying bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. The court denied her motion for bail or temporary pretrial release. The document also notes that Maxwell's counsel raised concerns about sleep deprivation during incarceration, which the appellate court directed back to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00004635.jpg
This document is the final signature page (Page 7 of 7) of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein. While signature blocks are prepared for Jeffrey Epstein, Gerald Lefcourt, R. Alexander Acosta, and A. Marie Villafaña, the only executed signature visible is that of Lilly Ann Sanchez, Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, dated September 24, 2007. The text certifies that Epstein has read, understood, and agreed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity