DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
US
|
Communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicholas Biase
|
Employment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley Edwards
|
Legal representative |
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-00005898.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2006 academic article from the Journal of Sexual Aggression reviewing the literature and theories surrounding the sexual grooming of children. It outlines the article's intent to define grooming, categorize it into three types (self, environment/others, and child), and connect these findings to existing models of sexual offense processes. The page is marked as a court document filed in October 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00005750.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 393) dated October 29, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It is a motion filed by the defense to preclude law enforcement witnesses from providing expert opinion testimony, arguing that the government should be limited to its two disclosed experts, Dr. Lisa Rocchio and Steven Flately. The motion cites case law (United States v. Mejia) to argue against 'skilled witnesses' who act as both fact and expert witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00005734.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, Maxwell's defense requests that the Court exclude evidence seized during a search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, as well as Government Exhibit 295 (an affidavit). The page cites Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts regarding the admission of out-of-court affidavits.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019846.jpg
This document appears to be an article or report excerpt (marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp) comparing the prosecutorial styles of Robert Morgenthau and Preet Bharara. It details Bharara's firing by President Trump in March 2017, his record of prosecuting NY politicians like Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, and critiques his focus on hedge fund insider trading over systemic Wall Street bank abuses. The text highlights the tension between political corruption investigations and executive power.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019692.jpg
This document is page 204 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets' by Edward Jay Epstein, bearing a House Oversight Committee stamp. The text discusses the NSA's surveillance capabilities, specifically regarding foreign jihadists and the bureaucratic compliance measures implemented after the Snowden breach in 2013. It details the oversight roles of Rajesh De (NSA General Counsel), the DOJ, and the President's Oversight Board, while noting the tension between surveillance duties and protecting government networks from cyber attacks.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019665.jpg
This document is page 177 from a book (likely 'Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales' based on the ISBN in the footer file name) included in House Oversight Committee evidence. The text details the legal complexities facing Edward Snowden, specifically the challenges his lawyer Ben Wizner (ACLU) faced in securing amnesty or a plea deal with the DOJ. It discusses the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, the strategic damage caused by Snowden fleeing to Russia, and Wizner's role as a gatekeeper for media access to Snowden.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019231.jpg
This is the final page (page 8) of a letter dated May 19, 2008, sent by attorneys Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to the Honorable Mark Filip. The attorneys are requesting that the Department of Justice discontinue federal involvement in the case (implied to be Epstein's) to allow the State to handle it, arguing issues of federalism and prosecutorial selectivity. They also request a meeting with Filip to discuss these matters.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031972.jpg
A newspaper clipping containing two main articles. The first details the Trump administration's lawsuit against California regarding sanctuary laws, highlighting the conflict between Attorney General Jeff Sessions and California officials like Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra. The second article reports on the suspension of prominent physicist Lawrence M. Krauss by Arizona State University following sexual misconduct allegations published by BuzzFeed. Krauss, who directed the Origins Project (an initiative known to have been funded by Jeffrey Epstein, though Epstein is not explicitly named in this specific text), issued a rebuttal denying the claims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031448.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing extreme delays in the FBI's processing of Jeffrey Epstein's FOIA requests. The author recounts an August 2015 call with Mr. Argall, who indicated that at the current pace of 500 pages every 5.5 months, the remaining 11,000 pages would take ten years to produce. The document argues these delays violate FOIA statutes and Obama-era transparency policies, citing relevant case law (*Clemente v. FBI*) to highlight the unreasonableness of the FBI's timeline.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031417.jpg
This document is page 3 of a printed Washington Post article dated February 6, 2019, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. It contains a statement from Epstein's attorney, Martin G. Weinberg, defending the non-prosecution agreement/plea deal as 'fairly negotiated' and reviewed by senior DOJ officials, while asserting Epstein fulfilled all legal obligations for over 10 years.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031403.jpg
This document is an email chain dated March 5, 2019, between attorney Lilly Sanchez and a recipient identified as 'J' (jeevacation@gmail.com). The correspondence is marked 'Privileged' with significant redactions in the message bodies. The visible content consists of a pasted Miami Herald article by Julie K. Brown reporting that the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office recused itself from the Jeffrey Epstein case and reassigned it to Atlanta, following scrutiny involving Attorney General nominee William Barr.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016520.jpg
This page is an extract from a legal brief or filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (likely related to the Epstein investigation). It cites a Minnesota Law Review article discussing the limitations of victims' rights in the U.S. compared to other jurisdictions, specifically noting that U.S. victims generally lack the power to challenge prosecutorial discretion (decisions not to prosecute). The document includes extensive footnotes citing various examples of enforcement discretion and budget limitations in contexts like tax law and marijuana enforcement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020819.jpg
This document is an opinion article by Kimberley Strassel dated May 10, 2018, discussing a conflict between the DOJ/FBI and the House Intelligence Committee regarding the disclosure of a top-secret intelligence source involved in the Trump campaign investigation. The text details Speaker Paul Ryan's support for Chairman Devin Nunes's subpoena and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's resistance to opening FBI files. The document appears to be part of a larger House Oversight production (marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020819).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026793.jpg
A 2018 letter from attorney Alan Fraade (representing Steven Hoffenberg) to Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke, proposing a 'mutually beneficial agreement.' The letter claims Hoffenberg can help Epstein avoid jail time through connections, specifically mentioning that Governor Ben Barnes is prepared to meet President Trump and Gary Baise will meet the DOJ. The letter threatens that a draft Complaint will be filed against Epstein if he does not engage in these discussions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017633.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) arguing that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) applies to the pre-charging phase of criminal investigations. It criticizes the Department of Justice's restrictive interpretation of the law and cites various state statutes (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan) as evidence of a legal trend toward early victim notification. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was used as evidence or legal argument in a congressional investigation, likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case and the failure to notify victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017627.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (likely the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. It analyzes the timeline of the Epstein investigation between 2006 and 2007, detailing how the Palm Beach Police referred the case to the FBI, who then referred it to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The text argues that under proper application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), victims should have been notified and allowed to confer with prosecutors regarding the nonprosecution agreement eventually reached with Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017621.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) stamped by the House Oversight Committee and bearing David Schoen's name. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) narrow interpretation that victim rights only attach after charges are filed. It contends that victims should have rights during plea negotiations and pre-charging stages, citing Department of Justice guidelines and the statutory purpose.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017606.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis or journal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) included in a House Oversight production, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen. It argues for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) during the investigation phase, before formal charges are filed, critiquing the DOJ/OLC position to the contrary. The text specifically cites the "Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case" as a primary example of why victim participation is necessary before charges are filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012132.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008, arguing that a new New York-based Grand Jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein violates his September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The letter contends that the NPA protects associates like Leslie Groff and [Redacted], and asserts that the new investigation is a 'fishing expedition' lacking federal jurisdiction (internet luring, travel, etc.). The defense claims that statements from three principal accusers (names redacted) actually undermine the prosecution's case and deny essential elements required for federal charges.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012131.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The firm argues that a previous review of the Epstein case by the DOJ/CEOS was insufficient and requests a true 'de novo' review, citing recent Supreme Court decisions (*Santos* and *Cuellar*) that weaken the federal case. The letter complains that AUSA Villafana has violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement by re-initiating a grand jury investigation and subpoenaing a [redacted] individual to provide testimony and documents (photos, emails, phone records) on July 1, 2008.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015329.jpg
This document page, marked with a House Oversight footer, details political events from late 2010. It covers the legal battles and eventual Congressional repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy involving President Obama and Judge Virginia Phillips. Additionally, it outlines Attorney General Eric Holder's opposition to California's Proposition 19 (marijuana legalization) following pressure from DEA chiefs and the Mexican government.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013409.jpg
This document is a printed webpage from the Palm Beach Daily News dated April 7, 2011, reporting on a motion filed by attorneys representing victims (Doe 1 and 2) to invalidate Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. The motion argues the agreement is illegal because the government failed to notify victims as required by the Crime Victim Rights Act, allegedly to protect Epstein due to his political connections. The article includes comments from U.S. Attorney's Office spokesperson Alicia Valle denying CVRA violations because no federal charges were filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025359.jpg
This document is page 7 of a letter to Mark Filip dated May 19, 2008, detailing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein leaking confidential plea negotiation details and prosecution theories to New York Times reporter Landon Thomas, while First Assistant Sloman denied the specificity of these leaks. The text criticizes the USAO for potential political and financial motivations and mentions a review by CEOS regarding U.S. Attorney Acosta's discretion in the prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025355.jpg
This document is page 3 of a letter from Jeffrey Epstein's defense team to Mark Filip, dated May 19, 2008. The text argues that the case against Epstein is a local solicitation of prostitution matter that should be handled by the State Attorney in Palm Beach, rather than federal prosecutors (USAO). The defense claims federal involvement is politically motivated by Epstein's connection to Bill Clinton and accuses federal prosecutors of leaking information to the New York Times and interfering with state plea negotiations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029771.jpg
This document, stamped by the House Oversight Committee, contains the text of a Daily Beast investigative report detailing ongoing federal scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Jean Luc Brunel. It highlights the FBI's investigation into potential sex trafficking, Brunel's role in sourcing girls via the MC2 agency, and the $1 million payment from Epstein to Brunel. The text also criticizes the leniency of Epstein's 2007 plea deal, noting irregular privileges such as the use of a private psychologist for evaluation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity