U.S. Attorney's
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Bureau of Prisons
|
Professional tension |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-01-01 | Investigation | The U.S. Attorney's office conducted an intensive investigation involving grand jury subpoenas. | N/A | View |
053.pdf
This document is a court order from June 26, 2009, issued by Judge Jeffrey J. Colbath in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The order denies Jeffrey Epstein's motion to stay the disclosure of his Non-Prosecution Agreement and sets a deadline of July 2, 2009, for the Clerk to release the documents, allowing time for an appeal to the 4th DCA. The document includes a service list of attorneys involved, including U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta and defense attorneys like Jack Goldberger.
EFTA00024356.pdf
This document is a highly significant email thread from August 10, 2019, chronicling the immediate aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's death. The correspondence involves the US Marshals Service (USMS), the US Attorney's Office (USAO), and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)/MCC New York. The thread reveals significant confusion and frustration within the USAO, as officials complain that the BOP issued press releases about Epstein's death before providing basic facts to the prosecutors, leaving them unable to inform Epstein's defense counsel or family. The timeline moves from an initial report of an 'apparent suicide attempt' at 7:52 AM to confirmation that he 'passed away' by 8:46 AM.
EFTA00022636.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 2019 within the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) instituting a formal litigation hold following Jeffrey Epstein's death at the MCC. The emails discuss a preservation request from Epstein's lawyers regarding a potential wrongful death case and instruct staff to preserve all records related to his death, conditions of confinement, and a prior incident involving physical injuries. One responder confirms compliance and cites USAO case number 2018R01618.
EFTA00022544.pdf
This document is a booking photograph (mugshot) of Jeffrey Epstein. It features the seal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) in the top left corner and an evidentiary tracking number (EFTA00022544) in the bottom right.
EFTA00018970.pdf
This document contains an email chain from August 10, 2019, between officials at the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)/MCC regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence reveals significant frustration from the USAO that the BOP issued a press release confirming the death before providing official details to the prosecutors, leaving them unable to update Epstein's defense counsel. The emails also discuss a suspicious incident where an individual claiming to be an MCC investigator called Epstein's associates attempting to arrange the release of the body, which officials suspected was a hoax and required FBI/DOJ-OIG intervention.
EFTA00014096.pdf
This document contains an email chain between FBI agents and the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAFLS) in July 2008 regarding the Epstein investigation. The correspondence discusses names found in 'message pads' that were not fully identified and expresses a belief that more victims will come forward following Epstein's conviction. It also includes an exchange with attorney Ted Leopold, who provides the names of two clients relevant to the investigation.
EFTA00014035.pdf
An email chain from December 2008 between attorney Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and an unnamed Assistant U.S. Attorney in West Palm Beach. They discuss an upcoming meeting involving 'Roy' which Lefkowitz states he will not attend, and arrange a phone call.
EFTA00013961.pdf
This document is an email chain dated July 30, 2008, between an Assistant U.S. Attorney (USAFLS) and Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein's attorney. The correspondence concerns scheduling a phone call to discuss the 'performance of the criminal Non-Prosecution Agreement' related to Epstein. Roy Black indicates he is traveling in California during the exchange.
EFTA00013774.pdf
An email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney to Alex Acosta and another colleague describing the emotional toll on victims interviewed regarding the Epstein case. The sender details specific reactions from two victims, including one suffering nightmares and another rejecting financial restitution in favor of a longer jail sentence than the reported 18-month plea deal. The sender urges Acosta to intervene or attend future interviews, stating the victims deserve better than they have received.
EFTA00013528.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2007 between Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAFLS). The correspondence concerns the scheduling of Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing hearings. Lefkowitz asserts that the Court confirmed a date of January 4th for both the plea and sentencing on 'agreed-upon counts,' while USAFLS staff discuss conflicting dates (Dec 14/16) internally and await confirmation from Judge Davis.
EFTA00013503.pdf
An email chain from October 18, 2007, between Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (including Alex Acosta and a redacted AUSA). The correspondence finalizes the date for Jeffrey Epstein to enter his guilty plea on November 20, 2007. The USAFLS specifically requests confirmation that postponing the plea date will not delay the start of Epstein's sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00000248.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing criticizing the Second Circuit's decision regarding the scope of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the government's promise not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators, including four unnamed individuals, was unqualified and should be upheld, citing a Supreme Court precedent (Santobello v. New York).
DOJ-OGR-00023175.tif
This document is an excerpt from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details OPR's findings that Acosta's decision to approve a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, resulting in an 18-month sentence, did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards or constitute professional misconduct, despite OPR criticizing certain decisions made during the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023153.tif
This document details events in November 2008 concerning Jeffrey Epstein's work release, which USAO official Villafaña believed breached his non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Villafaña communicated her concerns to defense attorney Black and other officials, leading to a notice of NPA violation and the recusal of Acosta from the case. The document highlights the ongoing dispute regarding the terms of Epstein's incarceration and the perceived special treatment he received.
DOJ-OGR-00023321.tif
This document is a conclusion from an OPR report detailing the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by federal prosecutors. It outlines the Miami Herald's 2018 report, the subsequent OPR investigation into the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving R. Alexander Acosta, and the findings regarding victim rights violations. The report identifies five former USAO attorneys, including Acosta, as subjects of the investigation concerning their involvement in the NPA and victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023251.tif
This document details communications and disagreements among legal parties regarding victim notification practices and the timing of Jeffrey Epstein's plea and sentencing in late 2007. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, Lefkowitz, Acosta, Starr, and Fisher are involved in discussions concerning the Justice for All Act, the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the proper procedure for informing victims of the case's developments, including objections from defense counsel and directives from prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00000673.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, containing victim impact statements in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Courtney Wild identifies herself as a victim of Epstein's sexual abuse for years, accusing him of manipulating the justice system and calling him a coward for dying before he could be confronted in court. An attorney, Mr. Edwards, then introduces his client, Jane Doe No. 1, who begins her own statement by referencing Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00000546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, where attorney Mr. Weinberg is defending his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg argues that Epstein is not an out-of-control offender or a flight risk, citing previous intensive investigations by state and federal authorities in 2005 and 2006 and the high level of publicity as reasons why any misconduct would already be known. The judge questions the basis of Weinberg's claims about his client's character.
DOJ-OGR-00021303.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal Department review between February and June 2008 regarding the Epstein case. It highlights that while Epstein's defense sought a broad review of misconduct and NPA terms, the DOJ only reviewed federal jurisdiction issues. The document also records a 'stand down' order where Oosterbaan instructed a CEOS attorney to cease involvement, and details the formal notification sent by the USAO to the Civil Rights Division classifying the case as 'child prostitution' rather than a matter of 'national interest.'
DOJ-OGR-00003183.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the timeline following Jeffrey Epstein's August 2019 suicide, including the dismissal of his indictment in SDNY and the conclusion of CVRA litigation in Florida where the court found the government had not litigated in bad faith but had violated the CVRA. It summarizes the appellate history of 'Jane Doe 1' seeking a writ of mandamus in the 11th Circuit regarding the non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Additionally, it marks the initiation of the OPR investigation into DOJ attorney misconduct, triggered by a request from Senator Ben Sasse following the Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity