United States
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Party to non prosecution agreement |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Office of the United Stat... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022041.jpg
This legal document, a court filing from April 9, 2020, argues that the government must produce all relevant and exculpatory evidence to the defendant, Mr. Thomas, for trial preparation. Citing the Brady doctrine and cases like United States v. Bagley, it asserts that the government has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, including information that can impeach prosecution witnesses, and that the court should compel this discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00022036.jpg
This document is a legal filing on behalf of a defendant, Mr. Thomas, arguing for the disclosure of evidence related to his criminal charges. The defense contends that rampant staffing shortages and mismanagement by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) forced the defendant to engage in the alleged conduct. To support this claim, the filing references an attached memorandum from a union meeting that occurred just three days before Jeffrey Epstein's death at the same facility in August 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00022005.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 10, 2020, for the case of United States v. Tova Noel and Michael Thomas. Defense counsel Jason Foy, representing Tova Noel, requests that the trial scheduled for April 20, 2020, be adjourned to October 2020. The justification for the delay is the voluminous amount of discovery material, which requires more time for the defense to review in order to provide effective counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00022003.jpg
This is a legal document filed on February 2, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney Eric J. Sarraga of the law firm Foy & Seplowitz formally enters his appearance as counsel for the defendant, Tova Noel, in the criminal case United States v. Tova Noel, case number 1:19-CR-00830-AT.
DOJ-OGR-00021978.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court transcript from December 19, 2019, regarding the case United States v. Tova Noel and Michael Thomas (the guards on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died). Attorneys for both sides make their appearances, and the government prosecutor, Rebekah Donaleski, informs the court that discovery has not yet been fully delivered. She notes the defendants self-surrendered on November 19 and that the government needs another month to complete the production of current discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00021925.jpg
This document is page 18 of a Grand Jury indictment, filed on November 19, 2019. It details Count Six, charging defendants Tova Noel and Michael Thomas with willfully creating and submitting a false count slip to the MCC on or about August 10, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The act was allegedly intended to obstruct or influence an investigation within the jurisdiction of a U.S. department or agency.
DOJ-OGR-00021922.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal indictment filed on November 19, 2019. It outlines Count Two against defendant Tova Noel, who is accused of falsifying a document on August 9, 2019, by submitting a fraudulent count slip for the 4 p.m. count at the MCC's Special Housing Unit (SHU) to obstruct a federal investigation. The document also introduces Count Three, which incorporates previous allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00021920.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment filed on November 19, 2019. It states that Epstein's death was ruled a suicide by the NYC Medical Examiner's Office. The main content is Count One of the indictment, which charges defendants Tova Noel and Michael Thomas with conspiracy in August 2019 to defraud the United States by impairing the functions of the MCC and making false statements to obstruct an investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021907.jpg
This is a formal letter from the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, dated April 14, 2025, to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The letter confirms the filing and docketing of a petition for a writ of certiorari for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. It specifies the petition was filed on April 10, 2025, and assigned the Supreme Court docket number 24-1073 on April 14, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00021901.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the legal standards for reviewing a court sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. It specifically addresses a finding by the District Court that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, which was based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. This testimony was deemed credible and corroborated by other testimony describing Maxwell as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00021900.jpg
This legal document page addresses two arguments from the defendant, Maxwell. First, it refutes her claim of 'substantial prejudice' from evidence of her conduct in New Mexico, noting she received the evidence weeks before trial. Second, it introduces Maxwell's argument that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable due to a leadership enhancement, an argument the court states it will disagree with.
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a larger filing, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to define the high standard for proving such a variance, asserting that the defendant was not misled and their rights were not violated. The document concludes that, similar to a previous argument about constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts outside the scope of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021895.jpg
This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021889.jpg
This legal document page discusses the jurisdictional limits of U.S. Attorneys' offices in the context of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It states that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not notified of the NPA made by the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), and that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any involvement. The text argues, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, that a U.S. Attorney's authority is confined to their specific district and does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021883.jpg
This page discusses the legal proceedings involving Epstein and Maxwell, detailing Epstein's plea agreement and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) protecting his co-conspirators. It outlines the indictment against Maxwell, which included eight counts, and provides footnotes referencing specific Florida statutes and federal charges related to sex trafficking and conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00021871.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for reviewing a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness. It specifically addresses a sentencing enhancement for Maxwell, arguing that the District Court correctly found she had a leadership role based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Sarah Kellen was Maxwell's assistant, which was corroborated by other testimony describing Maxwell as Epstein's "number two and the lady of the house" in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00021860.jpg
This legal document argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts, a principle established since 1789. It contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The document cites legal precedent ('Annabi') and statutory exceptions, such as the Attorney General's power to direct attorneys to act in other districts, to support its position.
DOJ-OGR-00021859.jpg
This document excerpt discusses the jurisdictional scope of a U.S. Attorney's office, questioning whether the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein by the USAO-SDFL could bind other districts like the USAO-SDNY. It references the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that a U.S. Attorney's authority is limited to their specific district. The document also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any role in reviewing or approving Epstein's NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021856.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court affirms a lower District Court's decision, ruling that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The court holds that such agreements are generally limited to the specific district in which they are made.
DOJ-OGR-00021853.jpg
This legal document page outlines the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, in which the United States agreed not to prosecute potential co-conspirators, specifically naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. The document then introduces the indictment against Maxwell, detailing the multiple federal charges she faced, including conspiracy, enticement of a minor, and sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00021843.jpg
This legal document argues for limiting the application of the 'Annabi' doctrine. It contends that this doctrine, from the Second Circuit, should not apply to a plea agreement originating in the Eleventh Circuit, where precedent dictates that ambiguities are resolved against the government. The document also asserts that the Annabi doctrine should only be applied when new charges are 'sufficiently distinct' from the original ones.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021841.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that plea agreements made by any U.S. Attorney are binding on the entire U.S. government across all federal districts. It cites several court cases establishing this principle and the related rule that any ambiguities in such agreements must be interpreted against the government. The document concludes by stating that a case named Annabi contradicts this established legal precedent.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity