USAO-SDNY
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
USAO-SDFL
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Appellant
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Subject of the agreement
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
EDNY
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
USAO-SDFL
|
Jurisdictional separation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Prosecutor defendant |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Informant witness to prosecutor |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Nathaniel Gamble II
|
Professional advisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Investigative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Interview | The subject must agree to meet with and be interviewed by the USAO-SDNY, the Federal Bureau of In... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The court holds that the NPA between Epstein and USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Case 22-1426, Document 87, filed on 07/27/2023. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of the potential prosecution of Maxwell by the USAO-SDNY and whether a Non-Prosecution... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Prosecution of Maxwell by the USAO-SDNY. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's appeal/contention regarding the application of the NPA to her prosecution in SDNY. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Appeal regarding the NPA bar on prosecution | Appellate Court | View |
| 2021-05-21 | N/A | Planned filing of public letter notifying Court of deferred prosecution acceptance. | SDNY | View |
| 2021-03-29 | Indictment | Maxwell's second superseding indictment | N/A | View |
| 2019-11-14 | N/A | USAO-SDNY obtained indictment against Tova Noel and Michael Thomas. | SDNY | View |
| 2019-08-09 | N/A | Planned submission of application for a search warrant for Little Saint James. | U.S. Virgin Islands | View |
| 2018-11-29 | N/A | USAO-SDNY initiated investigation into Epstein and co-conspirators | New York | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Investigation | The USAO-SDNY opened its investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Investigation | The USAO-SDNY commences the instant investigation. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Investigation | The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | Period of conduct charged under Count Six | Not specified | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000013.jpg
This legal document argues that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not bound by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). It cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to assert that the authority of a U.S. Attorney is limited to their specific district, a point reinforced by an Assistant Attorney General who stated she played no role in the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prevents her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The court cites *United States v. Annabi* to conclude that the NPA was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts like SDNY. Footnotes discuss legal precedents regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The text references a $750,000 fine imposed on Maxwell and cites legal precedent establishing that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district office where they are entered.
DOJ-OGR-00000005.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the issues presented on appeal regarding the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including arguments concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and juror impartiality. The court summarizes its holdings, stating that the NPA did not bind the prosecution in New York, the statute of limitations was not violated, and the motion for a new trial based on juror conduct was properly denied.
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-00021095.jpg
This legal document argues that a charge (Count Six) should be dismissed because the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) is bound by a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The author contends that the NPA shows an "affirmative appearance" of a broad restriction on prosecution for co-conspirators, contrasting it with the specifically limited non-prosecution provision for Epstein, which was restricted to "in this District."
DOJ-OGR-00021086.jpg
This document is a page from an appellate legal brief (Case 22-1426) arguing that the District Court erred in applying the 'Annabi' legal precedent to the Appellant's case. The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) originated outside the Second Circuit and should not be subject to its specific legal canons, and further argues that the conduct charged in Count Six falls within the time period covered by the original NPA. The document specifically challenges the USAO-SDNY's charges relative to the 2001-2007 offense period.
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
DOJ-OGR-00021049.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents (page i) for an appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments asserting that the 'Appellant' (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) should have all counts dismissed based on the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), claiming status as a third-party beneficiary and arguing that the USAO-SDNY is bound by the 'potential co-conspirators' provision.
DOJ-OGR-00022136.jpg
This document is page 2 of a deferred prosecution agreement filed in May 2021 (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT), likely concerning a Bureau of Prisons employee involved in the Epstein case (guards Tova Noel or Michael Thomas). The text outlines conditions of release, including mandatory cooperation with the FBI and DOJ-OIG regarding BOP activities, 100 hours of community service, and potential administrative termination of employment. The agreement allows for the deferral (and eventual dismissal) of prosecution if all conditions are met over a six-month period.
DOJ-OGR-00022129.jpg
This document is page two of a legal agreement, likely for deferred prosecution, filed on May 25, 2021. It outlines strict conditions for an individual, including reporting to a U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, completing 100 hours of community service, and fully cooperating with investigations by the USAO-SDNY, FBI, and DOJ-OIG, particularly concerning their employment with the Bureau of Prisons. Failure to comply could result in the USAO-SDNY revoking the agreement and proceeding with prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021903.jpg
This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.
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-00021887.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (dated December 2, 2024) related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein was geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida and does not bind the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) or prevent them from prosecuting Maxwell. It cites the legal precedent 'United States v. Annabi' to support the claim that plea agreements do not automatically bind other districts unless affirmatively stated.
DOJ-OGR-00021873.jpg
This document is a legal opinion from an appellate court, filed on October 20, 2022, which summarizes its reasons for affirming a lower District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell. The court found no error in the lower court's rulings, including that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution and that her conviction and sentence were sound.
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-00021844.jpg
This document is page 15 (labeled 20 of 51 in the header) of a legal appellate brief filed on November 1, 2024. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) covering the 2001-2007 period should have prevented the USAO-SDNY from charging the Appellant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) for conduct between 2001-2004. The text cites legal precedents (*Annabi*, *Alessi*, *Papa*) regarding whether plea agreements bind other US Attorney Offices and argues the Appellant was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024. It analyzes the legal precedent of *Annabi* (771 F.2d 671), focusing on whether a plea agreement made with the US Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) prevents prosecution by the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text highlights the Second Circuit's ruling that despite being counterintuitive, an agreement to dismiss counts by one district's prosecutor did not bind the United States from prosecuting in another district. This legal argument is likely being cited in the broader context of the Epstein case to discuss the validity and scope of Non-Prosecution Agreements across different federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021820.jpg
This document is a legal ruling from an appellate court, dated September 17, 2024, which affirms the conviction of Maxwell. The court rejects several grounds for appeal, including that Epstein's prior non-prosecution agreement should have barred her prosecution and that her indictment was outside the statute of limitations. The ruling upholds the District Court's judgment of conviction from June 29, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00021807.jpg
This legal document argues that the authority of U.S. Attorneys is statutorily limited to their specific federal districts, unless directed otherwise by the Attorney General. It applies this principle to a case involving Maxwell, suggesting that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not need to explicitly prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting, as their jurisdiction was already confined. The argument is supported by citations to U.S. Code and the legal precedent of 'Annabi'.
DOJ-OGR-00021806.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) discussing the legal validity and scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the USAO-SDNY was not notified of, nor did it approve, the NPA created by the USAO-SDFL, and cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that one US Attorney's actions in a specific district do not bind other districts or the nation. It also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division confirmed to the Office of Professional Responsibility that she had no role in the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00021803.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court addresses Maxwell's argument that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejects this claim, holding that the NPA made by the Florida office does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY), which brought the charges against her.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity