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-00000310.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) entered on July 9, 2019. The government argues that the Petitioners (victims) lack standing to void Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because the government is contractually bound to it, and a favorable ruling would not redress their injury. However, the document notably admits that a federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein remains a 'legally viable possibility' regardless of the NPA's status.
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
This legal document discusses the implications of setting aside a Non-Prosecution Agreement, particularly concerning the criminal prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. It cites several legal precedents emphasizing due process requirements for the government to adhere to plea bargains and the necessity of all contracting parties being involved in actions challenging a contract's validity. The document also touches upon the potential jurisdictional issues under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine if the Non-Prosecution Agreement were invalidated.
DOJ-OGR-00000307.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing for the dismissal of a petition due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The central argument is that the Petitioners lack Article III standing because they cannot demonstrate a sufficient "injury in fact" that is redressable by the court. The filing cites numerous legal precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, to support its position on the requirements for standing.
DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed by the United States government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The U.S. requests the dismissal of a petition filed by 'Jane Doe #1' and 'Jane Doe #2' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The primary argument for dismissal is that the court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction required to hear the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000300.jpg
This document is an addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement for Jeffrey Epstein, modifying paragraph 7. It clarifies the process for appointing an independent attorney representative for his victims and establishes Epstein's financial obligation to pay this representative's fees and hourly rate. However, it specifies that this obligation ceases if the representative chooses to file contested litigation against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00000295.jpg
This document is a page from a plea agreement outlining sentencing timelines, gain time restrictions, and confidentiality clauses for Epstein. It explicitly states that in exchange for his guilty plea, the United States will not prosecute named potential co-conspirators (Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova) and will suspend the federal Grand Jury investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000294.jpg
This page contains sections 7 through 11 of a legal agreement (likely the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement) between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the protocol for identifying victims, appointing a representative for them (paid by Epstein), and handling civil liability claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Crucially, the text states that Epstein's agreement to pay damages or waive liability contests in specific federal contexts does not constitute a general admission of civil or criminal liability.
DOJ-OGR-00000292.jpg
This document is a page from a legal agreement detailing a deferred prosecution deal for Epstein. Under the authority of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida for sex trafficking offenses will be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. The agreement stipulates that if Epstein violates its terms, federal prosecution can be initiated, but if he complies, all charges related to the joint FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation will be dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000280.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 11, 2019, details the legal proceedings and agreements surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the jurisdictional complexities of his alleged crimes, the government's efforts to prosecute him despite a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) entered into with the USAO-SDFL in 2007, and the defense's arguments against the notion of flight risk, citing Epstein's history of international travel with returns to the U.S. and his intent to contest charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000269.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal indictment filed on July 2, 2019, which outlines the forfeiture allegations against defendant Jeffrey Epstein. It states that as a result of the offenses alleged in Count Two, Epstein must forfeit property used in or derived from the crime, specifically identifying a property at 9 East 71st Street in New York, New York, owned by Maple, Inc.
DOJ-OGR-00000266.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing dated July 2, 2019, details "Overt Acts" committed in furtherance of a conspiracy involving commercial sex acts. It describes how JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, enticed and recruited multiple minor victims (Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, Minor Victim-3) for sex acts at his residences in New York and Florida, paying them hundreds of dollars. The document also notes that EPSTEIN encouraged Minor Victim-1 to recruit other girls, and mentions an "Employee-1" acting on EPSTEIN's behalf.
DOJ-OGR-00000265.jpg
This document is page 8 of a federal indictment filed on July 2, 2019, against Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines statutory allegations of sex trafficking conspiracy occurring between 2002 and 2005 in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere. The text details how Epstein paid 'victim-recruiters' hundreds of dollars to bring other minor girls to his Palm Beach residence.
DOJ-OGR-00000214.jpg
A Certificate of Compliance filed in the Supreme Court case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. Rina Danielson certifies that the associated filing contains 3,097 words, executed and notarized on May 9, 2025. The document bears a Department of Justice footer.
DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg
This legal document, page 24 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the sentencing of an individual named Maxwell. It affirms the District Court's application of a 'four-level leadership enhancement' based on testimony from two of Epstein's pilots. The pilots testified that Maxwell supervised her assistant, Sarah Kellen, and other testimony corroborated Maxwell's high-level role as Epstein's 'number two and the lady of the house' in Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00000020.jpg
This legal document, page 19 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the District Court's response to a specific note from the jury during deliberations in the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in a victim's (Jane's) return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent for sexual activity was present. The document states the court found the question too difficult to "parse factually and legally" and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions, an action which is being analyzed in this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of a District Court's decision. The appellant, Maxwell, argues for a new trial on the grounds that Juror 50 was dishonest on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The text outlines the high legal standard of "abuse of discretion" required to overturn the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that new trials are granted only sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00000014.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, argues that the duties of U.S. Attorneys are statutorily confined to their specific districts. It cites the case of Annabi to support the claim 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 an individual named Maxwell. The document includes footnotes referencing U.S. Code to detail the powers and limitations of U.S. Attorneys, including the exception that the Attorney General can authorize them to act outside their districts.
DOJ-OGR-00000007.jpg
This legal document page details the terms of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which included an eighteen-month sentence and a provision that the United States would not prosecute his potential co-conspirators, specifically naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. The document then transitions to discussing the indictment filed against Maxwell, outlining that it contained eight counts, with six proceeding to trial, and provides footnotes detailing the specific charges related to sex trafficking and conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00030376.jpg
This document is a page from a legal text, likely a statute, dated July 26, 2017. It provides definitions for legal terms such as "Convicted" and "Institution of higher education" and outlines specific reporting requirements for sexual offenders. The text mandates that offenders must report in person to the local sheriff's office within 48 hours of certain events, including establishing a new residence, being released from custody, or being convicted of a qualifying offense.
DOJ-OGR-00021102.jpg
This legal document argues that all remaining counts in a case must be dismissed because they fall within the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that binds the USAO-SDNY. The author contends the NPA's co-conspirator immunity is not limited to specific timeframes or offenses, citing a provision that allows the U.S. to prosecute Epstein for any federal offense upon a breach of the agreement as evidence of its broad scope. At a minimum, it is argued that Counts Three and Six must be dismissed as they fall within the NPA's scope as construed by the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein should be interpreted under Eleventh Circuit law rather than Second Circuit law. The text asserts that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the NPA's promise by 'the United States' not to prosecute Epstein's potential co-conspirators (specifically including the Defendant) is binding on all U.S. Attorneys' Offices and any ambiguity must be resolved against the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
This legal document argues that the 'Annabi' court decision is an outlier and inconsistent with the Circuit's established law regarding the interpretation of plea agreements. The author contends that contrary to the District Court's opinion, the Circuit has been reluctant to rely on Annabi's reasoning, which construes ambiguities against the defendant, and has instead consistently held that such ambiguities should be resolved against the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00021081.jpg
This legal document excerpt critiques the Second Circuit's interpretation of plea agreements, arguing it misread its own precedent in the 'Papa' case to create an "illogical" rule. This rule is contrasted with United States Supreme Court precedent from cases like 'Santobello' and 'Giglio', which establish that promises made by one prosecutor are binding on other prosecutors within the same office and must be disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the legal precedent set in the Annabi case concerning the scope of plea agreements. It explains the "Annabi rule," which holds that a plea agreement only binds the U.S. Attorney's office in the district where it was made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document also highlights that this rule has been sharply criticized by other courts, such as in U.S. v. Gebbie, for lacking a sound analytical basis.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity