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-00001002.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2020, argues against a defendant's request for temporary release by citing two recent S.D.N.Y. precedents (involving Gonzalez and Eley) where release was denied due to trials not being imminent. The filing also asserts that the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has been responsive and accommodating to defense counsel's requests for client access, undermining the claim that release is necessary for trial preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00000974.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing prior court decisions where defendants who knew of impending charges did not flee. It emphasizes that the government had no evidence of Ms. Maxwell planning to leave the country and arrested her without warning before a holiday. The document further contends that Ms. Maxwell's actions to avoid public scrutiny after Epstein's arrest do not indicate an intent to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00000960.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a legal filing (Document 18) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and several other cases regarding bail and detention, referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
DOJ-OGR-00000959.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00000944.jpg
This document is the signature page and certificate of service for a legal filing submitted by attorney David Oscar Markus of Markus/Moss PLLC on April 1, 2021. It references a separate case, United States v. Dashawn Robertson (District of New Mexico), likely as a citation or appendix item. The page bears a DOJ-OGR bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00000934.jpg
This legal document, part of case 21-770, argues for granting bond by citing four precedent cases from the Southern District of New York (Hussain, Buser, Acosta, and McFadden). In each cited case, defendants charged under similar statutes (18 U.S.C. 2422 and 2423) were granted personal recognizance bonds ranging from $100,000 to $250,000 with various conditions like home detention and electronic monitoring. The document uses these examples to demonstrate a pattern of granting bond in similar circumstances within the same jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00000931.jpg
This legal document argues that the trial court improperly denied bail to Ghislaine Maxwell by relying on the government's proffer, which was based on an indictment. The author contends that an indictment is merely an accusation and not evidence, citing legal precedent and pattern jury instructions from the Third Circuit to support this claim. The document asserts that the court should order Maxwell's release.
DOJ-OGR-00000930.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the pretrial detention conditions for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, are 'untenable' and prevent her from adequately preparing for trial. The filing cites legal precedents, including United States v. Jackson and United States v. Melendez-Carrions, to assert that prolonged pretrial detention under such circumstances constitutes unconstitutional punishment and violates due process.
DOJ-OGR-00000929.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the temporary release of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, under statute § 3142(i). It contends that her incarceration prevents her from adequately preparing for her upcoming trial in July, given the millions of pages of discovery documents she cannot effectively review. The argument compares her situation favorably to a precedent case, Robertson, to demonstrate the necessity of her release for a fair defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000928.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated April 1, 2021) argues for the temporary release of a defendant (likely Ghislaine Maxwell, based on the case number context) by citing legal precedents established during the COVID-19 pandemic. It references *United States v. Clark* and *United States v. Robertson* to establish that courts have granted release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) when incarceration impedes the defendant's ability to prepare their defense. A footnote notes that the 10th Circuit stayed the release order in the *Robertson* case pending appeal.
DOJ-OGR-00000925.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law dated April 1, 2021, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents like United States v. Horton and United States v. Shakur. It then begins an argument that Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i) because the 'horrific conditions' of her 'de facto solitary confinement' prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000866.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from September 22, 2021, detailing the procedural history of a defendant's third motion for release on bail. It outlines the dates of the defendant's motion, the government's opposition, and the defendant's reply. The document then discusses the legal standard regarding the court's jurisdiction to rule on the bail motion while the defendant's bail appeal is pending in a higher court.
DOJ-OGR-00000811.jpg
This document is a page from a court order denying bail for Jeffrey Epstein. The court determines that the defendant poses a significant flight risk due to his wealth, overseas ties (specifically in Paris), and the severity of the potential sentence (45 years). The court cites precedent such as United States v. Abdullahu to support the decision that no conditions can reasonably assure his appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00000796.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, discusses the legal principles and precedents surrounding the presumption of remand for serious offenses, emphasizing that this presumption is not easily erased and requires deference to Congress's judgment. It highlights that the U.S. Pretrial Services Department, following an interview with Mr. Epstein, issued a report on July 8, 2019, recommending to the Court that Mr. Epstein continue to be remanded, concluding that no conditions could ensure his compliance or public safety.
DOJ-OGR-00000686.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing dated September 3, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein. It concludes a victim impact statement expressing frustration over Epstein's suicide escaping justice, but gratitude for the handling of the current case compared to the past. Attorney Mr. Edwards then addresses the court, referencing a 2008 case filed under the Crime Victims Rights Act and introducing his co-counsel, former judge Paul Cassell.
DOJ-OGR-00000645.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing where the speaker argues that a court must independently evaluate a government's motion to dismiss and is required to consider the victims' views before making a decision. The speaker cites the case of United States v. Heaton and the expert opinion of former Judge Paul G. Cassell, who concluded that the Crime Victims' Rights Act gives victims broad rights in such matters. The speaker expresses full agreement with this viewpoint, despite some factual differences between the current case and the Heaton case.
DOJ-OGR-00000539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The text captures a dialogue between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg. The Court lists various crimes involving minors that carry a presumption of remand. Mr. Weinberg acknowledges the gravity of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein but argues that his case does not fit the typical profile ('heartland') of commercial sex trafficking statutes (1591) which usually involve servitude, enslavement, and pimps.
DOJ-OGR-00000496.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 18, 2019, details arguments concerning the Defendant, Mr. Epstein's, foreign passports and the associated flight risk. The Defense claims Epstein acquired an Austrian passport in the 1980s from a friend for personal protection during Middle East travel and never used it for international entries. Conversely, the Government argues that the passport, potentially obtained under an alias, contains stamps indicating travel to France, Spain, the UK, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, suggesting a capacity for false identities and a serious flight risk. The document also notes Epstein's substantial cash assets of over $56 million as of June 30, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000479.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 8 of 33 from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 18, 2019. It outlines the legal standards for a court to order a defendant's detention based on two separate grounds: dangerousness to the community and risk of flight. The text cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Bail Reform Act to support its arguments regarding evidence standards and the factors a court must consider.
DOJ-OGR-00000454.jpg
This document is a letter dated July 17, 2019, from attorney Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson LLP to Judge Richard M. Berman of the Southern District of New York. The letter is filed in the criminal case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein and serves to submit documents concerning Epstein's registration status in New Mexico. This submission is made at the court's request and is intended to further support Epstein's application for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000421.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A defense attorney argues that the current indictment is an illegitimate 'do-over' of a previous investigation conducted in Florida regarding allegations from 2002-2005, which had been resolved via a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The speaker contends that revisiting these facts undermines the integrity of plea deals with the United States and begins to argue the definition of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing by the United States government. It requests that the court dismiss the petitioners' claims and proceedings due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The argument relies on legal precedent from the 11th Circuit, specifically concerning the doctrine of ripeness, which dictates that a court cannot issue advisory opinions or decide cases that are not ready for judicial review.
DOJ-OGR-00000316.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 9, 2019, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein does not prevent the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against him in other districts. It cites legal precedent and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to assert that the original agreement made by the USAO-SDFL was not binding on other jurisdictions like the Southern District of New York or the District of New Jersey. The document also addresses the rights of petitioners (victims) under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), stating they have not been denied the ability to confer with the government about potential charges against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00000315.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, was limited in scope. It contends the NPA only barred federal prosecution for specific offenses within the Southern District of Florida and did not prevent the United States from bringing other federal criminal charges against him elsewhere. The document quotes the agreement to support its claim that the federal government's ability to prosecute Epstein was not fully relinquished.
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
This legal document argues against the Petitioners' request to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. It contends that the Petitioners' claims are not ripe for adjudication, citing legal precedent, and asserts that contrary to their claims, they were consulted by the government. Specifically, it states that Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña spoke with Petitioners about Epstein's offenses against them prior to the agreement being signed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity