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-00021582.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a judge discusses the sentencing guidelines applicable to the defendant, Guerrero. The central issue is determining whether the offense, a conspiracy of sexual abuse involving a victim named Carolyn, continued past November 1, 2004, which would trigger harsher 2004 guidelines. The judge states that both they and the jury found Carolyn to be a credible witness, whose testimony is being used to establish the timeline of the crime.
DOJ-OGR-00021535.jpg
This legal document argues that a news article alleging juror misconduct is insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. It cites numerous legal precedents from various courts, including the Second Circuit, which have consistently held that unsworn, hearsay, anonymous, or speculative reports do not meet the high evidentiary standard required to investigate such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00021510.jpg
This document is page 6 of 7 of a legal agreement (likely the Non-Prosecution Agreement) between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States. In this section, Epstein acknowledges that breaching the agreement allows the US to prosecute him for federal offenses. He explicitly waives his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial regarding any delays caused by this agreement and waives his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury, consenting instead to be charged via Information.
DOJ-OGR-00021509.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal agreement (the Non-Prosecution Agreement) between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines sentencing dates (2007/2008), stipulations regarding 'gain time' in prison, and a confidentiality clause attempting to keep the agreement out of the public record. Crucially, it contains the controversial immunity clause stating the U.S. will not prosecute any potential co-conspirators (names redacted) and agrees to suspend the federal Grand Jury investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021501.jpg
This legal document outlines several terms of an agreement with Epstein, stipulating that he must waive challenges to information from the State Attorney's Office, enter a guilty plea by September 28, 2007, and begin his sentence by October 15, 2007. In exchange, the United States will provide his attorneys with a list of up to forty victims and move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The document also details Epstein's waiver of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021499.jpg
This document is the first page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines five specific federal offenses Epstein is reported to have committed between 2001 and October 2005, focusing on conspiracy, interstate travel for illicit sexual conduct, and the sex trafficking of minors. The document cites specific violations of Title 18 of the United States Code.
DOJ-OGR-00021457.jpg
This document, an analysis from an investigative report, details the government's handling of victims in the Epstein case, specifically regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It discusses criticisms of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation and the government's failure to consult with victims, which a district court later found to be a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of federal prosecutors, including Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña, concerning their obligations to victims before the NPA was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021442.jpg
This document discusses legal proceedings and agreements related to Epstein, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and litigation. It mentions the government's intention to provide victims with copies of the NPA and revisions to a letter in response to criticism.
DOJ-OGR-00021440.jpg
This document details the FBI and USAO's process for notifying victims of the resolution of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in July and August 2008. It includes a script used by FBI agents to inform victims of Epstein's plea deal (18 months imprisonment, sex offender registration, restitution) and documents the transmission of letters to victims both within and outside the US. A footnote highlights internal DOJ discussions involving Acosta and Villafaña regarding the finalization of the victim list and the exclusion of new victims identified after the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021439.jpg
This legal document details the actions of government representative Villafaña in July 2008 regarding the implementation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes Villafaña's communications with Epstein's defense team, including Goldberger and Sanchez, to provide an updated victim list and send notification letters to victims. The document highlights the specific legal language used to ensure victims retained their rights to pursue civil damages as if Epstein had been federally convicted.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00021284.jpg
This document details the finalization and signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein on September 24, 2007. It describes how Acosta made crucial last-minute edits to the agreement, removing requirements for the state court and State Attorney's Office, and how Epstein's counsel, Lefkowitz, transmitted the signed agreement with a request for it to be kept confidential.
DOJ-OGR-00021212.jpg
This document provides a timeline of key events in the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein from May 2006 to October 2008. It details the opening of the investigation, meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's counsel, the decision to offer a state-based resolution, and the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The timeline concludes with Epstein's guilty plea in state court, a subsequent legal challenge by a victim (Jane Doe), and the start of Epstein's work release program.
DOJ-OGR-00021132.jpg
This legal document argues that the court incorrectly applied Federal Rule of Evidence 606 to block an inquiry into statements made by Juror 50 to journalists. The author contends that because the juror voluntarily broadcast his experiences and role in the deliberations to convict Maxwell, the rule's purpose of protecting jurors from harassment is not applicable in this specific instance. The document cites 'Tanner v. United States' as precedent for the rationale behind the rule.
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court filing, argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion by Maxwell to modify a protective order. The filing contends that the appellate court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead affirm the lower court's decision, as the case does not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such intervention.
DOJ-OGR-00019630.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against an immediate appeal by a party named Maxwell regarding the use of criminal discovery materials. It contends that Maxwell has not met the legal standard for such a review, citing precedents like Flanagan, Martoma, and Guerrero. The document asserts that Maxwell's concerns about privacy and publicity can be adequately addressed during a standard appeal after a final judgment is rendered in her criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019623.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the collateral order exception, which allows for appeals of certain pretrial orders, must be interpreted with 'utmost strictness' in criminal cases. It cites Supreme Court precedent establishing that only four specific types of pretrial orders are appealable under this doctrine. The document emphasizes that the Court has consistently refused to expand this narrow exception, and that any justification for an immediate appeal must be exceptionally strong.
DOJ-OGR-00019612.jpg
This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.
DOJ-OGR-00019596.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 28, 2020) outlines a dispute over appellate jurisdiction. Ms. Maxwell is requesting permission to share facts with another judge under seal. The document argues against the government's position that the court lacks jurisdiction, asserting that Judge Nathan's previous order meets the requirements of the 'collateral order doctrine' despite the government's strict interpretation.
DOJ-OGR-00019481.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 8, 2020, outlines statutory allegations against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. It alleges that from approximately 1994 to 1997, Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein and others in the Southern District of New York to entice individuals to travel for illegal sexual activity, in violation of U.S. federal law (Title 18, Section 2422).
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. The author, likely representing Ms. Maxwell, argues that a protective order is appealable by citing precedent from cases like *Pappas* and *United States v. Salameh*. The filing refutes the government's argument by clarifying the focus of Ms. Maxwell's appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00019404.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 58-page legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. It is a table of authorities, listing legal cases, federal rules of procedure, and statutes that are cited within the larger document. The page numbers provided indicate where each authority is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the very limited 'collateral order doctrine,' a narrow exception that permits immediate appeal of certain orders if they meet a strict three-part test. The text cites numerous Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' in criminal proceedings to avoid undue delay and piecemeal litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019359.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (dated September 16, 2020) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The text argues that the court order denying Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not eligible for interlocutory appeal. It addresses Maxwell's concern that her inability to use criminal discovery in civil litigation might lead to the unsealing of civil documents, potentially prejudicing her criminal trial, by stating she can raise these prejudice issues during the criminal trial itself.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity