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-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-00000243.tif
This document is a Table of Contents for a legal brief or report. It outlines sections discussing the reasons for granting a petition, including arguments about a split among circuits regarding promises made by U.S. Attorney's offices, criticism of a Second Circuit decision, and the case's suitability for resolving a recurring legal question. The document also includes page numbers for each section.
DOJ-OGR-00000237.tif
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an appellate brief or court opinion, discussing the scope of plea agreements and the interpretation of legal clauses. It references several court cases and legal principles related to certiorari and the binding nature of agreements, particularly concerning the United States government and the USAO.
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
This document, likely a legal filing, discusses the interpretation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Epstein and his co-conspirators. It analyzes the legal principle 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' in relation to the NPA's terms, highlighting how the agreement defers Epstein's prosecution to the State of Florida and includes a clause where the United States agrees not to charge his co-conspirators.
DOJ-OGR-00000231.tif
This document discusses the interpretation and scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein, emphasizing that it covers potential co-conspirators and assistants. It clarifies that the agreement was made with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, under the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, and not the entire Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00000211.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, likely a brief or memo, discussing the limited scope of various agreements made by different United States Attorney's Offices and divisions of the Department of Justice. It references several legal cases, including United States v. Lafarge S.A., United States v. Goldfield, United States v. Ellison (likely Caroline Ellison), and United States v. Coccagna, providing case numbers, ECF filings, and dates, and notes the non-binding nature of these agreements on other federal, state, local, or foreign authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00000207.tif
This document appears to be page 7 of a legal brief or DOJ Office of General Research (OGR) report discussing the enforceability of plea agreements. It argues that the United States government must honor the plain language of written plea deals, even if it prevents a meritorious prosecution, to maintain trust in the justice system. It uses a hypothetical scenario (likely analogous to the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement) where a defendant pleads guilty to protect co-conspirators from being charged in other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00000205.tif
This legal document discusses the requirements for voluntary and knowing plea agreements, emphasizing that a defendant must be aware of the consequences and that the United States cannot unilaterally change agreement terms. It cites Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding plea colloquies and asserts that the Department of Justice has significant leverage during plea negotiations, even in atypical non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00000203.tif
This document, likely a legal brief or argument, discusses the importance of the government upholding its promises in plea agreements. It argues that the NACDL urges the Court to ensure the government honors its commitments to defendants, especially given the significant rights defendants waive when entering such agreements. The text emphasizes that courts should enforce these promises to maintain fairness and trust in the legal system.
DOJ-OGR-00000197.tif
This document is a 'Table of Cited Authorities' listing various legal cases, including several 'United States v.' cases and other landmark Supreme Court decisions. It provides case names, citations, and specific page numbers within the main document where these cases are referenced, along with recent dates for some lower court cases. The document is likely part of a legal brief or filing.
DOJ-OGR-00000147.tif
This legal document addresses discovery disputes in a case involving 'Maxwell.' It details Maxwell's motion to compel the Government to produce various types of evidence, including Jencks Act, Brady, and Giglio material. The Court rules that while Maxwell is not entitled to expedited discovery, the parties must confer on a pretrial disclosure schedule, and the Court accepts the Government's assertion that it has already disclosed all required Brady and Giglio material, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00000143.tif
This document discusses the legal complexities surrounding a joint trial for Maxwell, specifically focusing on the potential disqualification of her attorneys due to their involvement as potential witnesses in perjury counts and the civil action. It cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit and District of Nevada regarding attorney testimony and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, highlighting the prejudice Maxwell could face given her attorneys' long-standing representation and familiarity with the case facts.
DOJ-OGR-00000140.tif
This document is a legal excerpt, likely from a court order or memorandum, discussing motions filed by 'Maxwell.' The Court addresses Maxwell's arguments for dismissing charges, stating her motion is premature and that determining truth, falsity, and materiality of statements are typically jury functions. The document cites several legal precedents to support the Court's position that Maxwell's statements could be considered material and that her arguments for dismissal are not sufficient at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00000136.tif
This document is a legal ruling or excerpt from a legal ruling concerning a defendant named Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's attempts to dismiss her indictment, stating that she failed to prove her accusers fabricated stories or that the government's delay caused actual prejudice, and that the charges in the S1 superseding indictment are sufficiently specific.
DOJ-OGR-00000117.tif
This document outlines several motions made by 'Maxwell' in a legal proceeding, including motions to dismiss perjury counts, sever counts, strike indictment language, compel discovery, and dismiss all counts related to grand jury indictments. It also states that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement from September 2007 does not prevent the current prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00000103.tif
This document is a court judgment dated June 29, 2022, sentencing a defendant as per pages 2 through 8 of the judgment under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. It notes that counts 7 and 8 and underlying indictments were dismissed, and the defendant was found not guilty on count 2. The document also lists additional counts of conviction for transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity (18 USC 2423.F, offense ended 12/31/1997, count 4) and sex trafficking of an individual under eighteen (18 USC 1591.F, offense ended 7/30/2004, count 6), and requires the defendant to notify the U.S. attorney of changes in personal information or economic circumstances until all financial obligations are paid.
DOJ-OGR-00000093.tif
This document outlines an agreement involving Epstein, detailing terms of his sentence, including restrictions on gain time and an obligation to provide an accounting of gain time earned. It also addresses the anticipated non-disclosure of the agreement, with provisions for notification to Epstein if a FOIA request or compulsory process mandates disclosure, and specifies Epstein's obligations concerning the State Attorney's Office and convincing the 15th Judicial Circuit Judge to accept his sentencing recommendation.
DOJ-OGR-00000092.tif
This document excerpt details clauses from an agreement involving Epstein, outlining his waiver of the right to contest damages for identified individuals proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. It specifies that Epstein's signature and waivers do not constitute an admission of criminal or civil liability, particularly for individuals not on the list provided by the United States. The document also sets a deadline for Epstein to enter a guilty plea and be sentenced by October 26, 2007, with no objection from the United States regarding his self-reporting.
DOJ-OGR-00000091.tif
This document outlines terms of an agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, detailing his obligations to waive challenges and appeal rights, provide agreements to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and cooperate regarding victims. It states that the United States will provide victim lists, facilitate the appointment of an attorney representative paid by Epstein, and Epstein will not contest jurisdiction for victim lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida. This appears to be part of a plea agreement or similar legal settlement.
DOJ-OGR-00000088.tif
This document outlines five types of criminal activities related to minor females and commercial sex acts, referencing specific sections of Title 18 U.S. Code. It then states that Epstein is seeking to resolve his state and federal criminal liability through an agreement, requiring him to comply with its terms and undertake actions with the State Attorney's Office, following an investigation by state and federal law enforcement agencies and consultation with the State Attorney's Office, considering the interests of the United States and the State of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000083.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or report, discussing legal arguments concerning a defendant named Maxwell. It addresses whether the evidence at trial varied prejudicially from the indictment and concludes that the evidence presented, which included Maxwell transporting 'Jane' to New York for sexual abuse, did not materially differ from the indictment's allegations. The text references legal precedents like United States v. Salmonese and Dove.
DOJ-OGR-00000076.tif
This legal document discusses the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges related to the sexual abuse of minors, focusing on the application of § 3283. It references the Weingarten v. United States case, which established a 'case-specific approach' for interpreting statutory provisions, and notes that one of the victims is identified as 'Jane'. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Sampson, Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Maxwell, and Taylor v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00000061.tif
This document, dated April 10, 2025, is a legal filing arguing for the granting of a petition for certiorari. It highlights a legal dispute regarding the enforceability of a government promise not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators, specifically mentioning Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution despite such a promise. David Oscar Markus, Counsel of Record from MARKUS/MOSS PLLC, is representing the petitioner.
DOJ-OGR-00000058.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, discussing the interpretation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and plea agreements. It argues that ambiguities in such agreements should be resolved against the government, citing several court cases. The document specifically contends that the NPA in question was intended to bind the Southern District of New York, contrary to a Second Circuit conclusion that suggested it only bound the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
This document, likely a legal petition or brief, discusses the reasons for granting a petition filed by 'Maxwell' after an en banc rehearing was denied. It focuses on a circuit split regarding the binding nature of plea agreements made by a U.S. Attorney's office in one district on other U.S. Attorney's offices. The document cites Santobello v. New York as a precedent suggesting that such promises should be binding across different prosecutors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity