Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
066.pdf
This document is a Government Memorandum filed on July 29, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, responding to Court Orders regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. The Government supports the disclosure of these transcripts due to significant public interest, noting that Epstein is deceased and Maxwell is incarcerated, but requests redactions to protect victim identities. The memo analyzes the 'In re Craig' factors for unsealing grand jury records and confirms that the key law enforcement witnesses are still active.
037.pdf
A court order from the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, dated June 10, 2009, in the case of State v. Epstein (Case No. 2008 CF 9381 AXX). Moving parties, including the Palm Beach Post and a redacted nonparty, were granted intervention regarding motions to vacate, intervene, and unseal. The court ordered the defendant to file a response by June 12, 2009, and set a hearing for June 25, 2009, noting the court may view documents in camera.
007.pdf
A court calendar notice for the Circuit Criminal Felony division in Florida regarding case numbers 06CF009454AXX and 08CF009381AXX against Jeffrey Epstein. The document adds an event (likely a status hearing) to the calendar for June 30, 2008, at 8:30 AM, with the note 'Counsel Agreed'. The document was filed on June 27, 2008.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for a Protective Order filed by plaintiff M.J. on November 11, 2010, requesting the court bar Jeffrey Epstein from direct or indirect contact. The motion details a pattern of Epstein using private investigators to harass and intimidate victims and witnesses, specifically citing an incident on July 1, 2010, where a PI named Thaddeus Knowles followed 'Jane Doe' and flashed lights into her home. It also references Epstein's intimidation of other witnesses including Sarah Kellen, Leslie Groff, and Alfredo Rodriguez, and his history of violating no-contact orders.
010-11.pdf
This is a court order from September 2014 in the case of Jane Doe v. United States, concerning Jeffrey Epstein's intervention. Judge Kenneth Marra granted in part and denied in part Epstein's motion for a protective order regarding correspondence between his lawyers and the US Attorney's Office. While the court agreed to restrict dissemination of materials to the press to avoid publicity in this 'high profile' case, it rejected Epstein's request to automatically require court permission to seal every future filing.
010-10.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated April 15, 2015, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion for a supplemental protective order. Epstein sought to keep correspondence between his lawyers and the US Government regarding his non-prosecution agreement sealed from the public. Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the public interest in determining if the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was violated outweighs Epstein's desire for confidentiality, stating that plea negotiations are not privileged.
030.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Joinder' filed on June 8, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join a motion for a no-contact order against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing alleges that Epstein's associate and recruiter, Hayley Robson, has been harassing victims Jane Does 4 and 7 through text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by and cooperating with Epstein. The plaintiffs request a court order prohibiting Epstein from any direct or indirect contact with the victims.
045.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Joinder' filed on June 8, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Plaintiffs Jane Does 2-7 join a motion for a 'No-Contact Order' against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing alleges that Epstein's associate, Hayley Robson (who originally recruited the victims), has been harassing Jane Does 4 and 7 via text messages and in-person threats while claiming to be financially supported by Epstein. The plaintiffs argue that a court order is necessary to prevent Epstein from contacting or harassing victims through third parties like Robson.
EFTA00032906.pdf
This document is an 'Access to Justice' email newsletter from Law360 dated April 20, 2020. It aggregates various legal news stories, primarily focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the justice system, including court closures, remote hearings, and bankruptcy issues. It is relevant to the Epstein files because it contains a summary of a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling that the Crime Victims' Rights Act protections do not arise until after a formal criminal charge is filed, which is described as a blow to Epstein's victims.
EFTA00030202.pdf
An email chain from July 12, 2019, originating from an Assistant State Attorney in the Special Victim's Unit/Human Trafficking division of the 15th Judicial Circuit (Florida). The attorney is contacting an individual to solicit information regarding crimes by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County and to identify victims willing to make statements to local law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues against allowing the Government to bypass the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by moving jurisdictions ('parachuting into a new circuit'). It cites various legal precedents to argue that the court should apply the law of the circuit where the violation or agreement occurred (referencing the 11th Circuit) to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights in the plea-bargaining process.
DOJ-OGR-00020772.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order (filed April 16, 2021) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's rejection of Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations, specifically concerning the 2003 PROTECT Act and retroactive application of laws to past conduct. The legal analysis relies on precedents such as 'Weingarten' and 'Landgraf'.
DOJ-OGR-00020577.jpg
This document is a court docket page from June 2022 detailing the final proceedings leading up to and including the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It records orders permitting specific victims (including Virginia Giuffre and Annie Farmer) to present impact statements, notes Giuffre's absence due to medical issues, and confirms the sentencing hearing took place on June 28, 2022. It also includes an order granting the NY Times' motion to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021685.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. It contains legal arguments rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that a U.S. Attorney's Office in one district is bound by a plea agreement made in another, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent (San Pedro v. United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 547 regarding the limitation of a U.S. Attorney's authority to their own district. A footnote discusses and dismisses Maxwell's argument regarding an 'inter-circuit exclusionary rule.'
DOJ-OGR-00021459.jpg
This legal document analyzes the ambiguity of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) concerning when victims' rights attach, particularly before formal charges are filed. It notes that at the time of the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Epstein case, court precedent was sparse and divided, a situation that continued as of the writing of this report. Because the law was not clear, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the prosecutors' failure to consult with victims before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021328.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number 1:20-cr-00330) discussing legal precedents involving prosecutorial discretion and immunity. It cites Supreme Court cases such as Wayte v. United States and Imbler v. Pachtman to argue that prosecutors have broad discretion in charging decisions and absolute immunity regarding those decisions, including the decision *not* to charge. The document concludes by introducing a section on plea agreement promises of leniency towards third parties, which is relevant to the non-prosecution agreement in the Epstein case.
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text records a judge providing legal guidance regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence under Rule 613(b). The judge cites specific case law (Almonte, Leonardi) to explain that law enforcement notes generally do not prove inconsistency unless the witness subscribed to them or the interviewing officer is called as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg
This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008949.jpg
This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 600) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 11, 2022. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically focusing on how to determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It details a multifactor test adopted by the Second Circuit to distinguish between single and multiple conspiracies.
DOJ-OGR-00031668.jpg
This document is a letter dated August 25, 2006, from the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to Aileen Josephs, P.A. The letter is a formal denial of a public records request concerning Jeffrey Epstein, which was submitted on August 14, 2006. The denial is based on the grounds that the records pertain to an active criminal investigation and are therefore exempt from public disclosure under Florida law.
DOJ-OGR-00010752.jpg
This is the final page of a court order issued by United States Circuit Judge Alison J. Nathan. It instructs counsel to ensure shortened statements conform to requirements and orders the Government to provide copies of the order to counsel for eight specific individuals.
DOJ-OGR-00005592.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is part of a motion by the Government in a criminal case. The Government argues that the Court should prevent the defense from introducing certain evidence and arguments, such as the Minor Victims' consent or a separate Florida investigation, deeming them irrelevant and prejudicial. The Government requests that the defense be required to provide advance notice before raising these issues so their admissibility can be litigated outside the jury's presence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010583.jpg
This page from a legal filing details the judicial orders prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein from contacting his victims following his 2008 guilty plea. It outlines specific no-contact orders issued by Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo and the federal court. Furthermore, it documents two civil lawsuits filed by attorney Brad Edwards against Epstein in August and September 2008 on behalf of victims 'Jane Doe' and 'E.W.,' alleging sexual assault and a RICO conspiracy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015658.jpg
This document is the signature page of a court order from the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, dated November 12, 2015. Judge Thomas Lynch rules that Defendant Alan Dershowitz may be present at a specific deposition, which will be overseen by a special master paid for by the defendant to rule on objections. The document is marked with the Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015658.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity