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-00021755.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing dated July 27, 2023, argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein binds the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The author contends that the NPA's explicit language, which grants immunity to Epstein's co-conspirators, demonstrates a broad, "global" intent that overrides the usual rule preventing prosecutors in one district from binding those in another. The document cites legal precedents like U.S. v. Russo to support its interpretation of the agreement's scope.
DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
This document is a legal brief from a court case, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her sentence was erroneous due to a miscalculation and an unsupported four-point enhancement. The brief also contends that Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement that should have barred the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and requests that her conviction be reversed or the case be remanded.
DOJ-OGR-00021744.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. The filing presents two main arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell: first, that a non-prosecution agreement makes her a third-party beneficiary and bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and second, that the District Court erred by not removing Juror 50 for cause after the juror provided dishonest testimony and concealed information about being a victim of child sex abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
This document is page 143 of a legal filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against granting the defendant an evidentiary hearing regarding a 'Franks' analysis and asserts that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to obtain discovery or dismiss perjury counts. The Government contends that a jury should decide whether the defendant committed perjury during two depositions in a prior civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
This document page is from a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that the prosecution did not improperly use civil discovery materials or mislead the court. The government distinguishes its actions from the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, noting that while AUSA-1 met with the law firm Boies Schiller in February 2016, no action was taken then, and the actual investigation began in November 2018 independent of improper influence.
DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, details discussions from an April 9, 2019 hearing. Chief Judge McMahon questions the Government's request for materials from a civil libel case involving Maxwell, expressing concerns about potential criminal proceedings and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The judge also probes into prior contacts between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO-SDNY) and the law firm Boies Schiller related to the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003026.jpg
This court document outlines the procedural history of the civil litigation between Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell, including deposition dates in 2016 and a settlement in 2017. It details how the USAO-SDNY formally opened its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirators in late November 2018, explicitly crediting Julie K. Brown's reporting in the Miami Herald as the catalyst. The document also clarifies that a specific prosecutor, 'AUSA-1', was not involved in opening this 2018 investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00003024.jpg
This legal document describes a February 2016 meeting where attorneys presented information to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA-1) about individuals connected to Epstein, with a focus on Maxwell. It asserts that because this meeting pre-dated the depositions central to the current indictment, the attorneys could not have alleged perjury related to those specific depositions at that time. The document also notes AUSA-1's lack of recall regarding specific perjury discussions involving Maxwell and details the government's subsequent review of AUSA-1's emails for related communications.
DOJ-OGR-00003015.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges due to pre-indictment delay. The government contends that the defendant has not shown the delay was an intentional strategic tactic, citing legal precedents like Lovasco to support that investigative delays are permissible. The filing refutes the defendant's timeline, stating the relevant investigation into Epstein and his co-conspirators began in late 2018, not decades prior.
DOJ-OGR-00003010.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) outlines the Government's argument that the defendant has failed to prove prejudice regarding the unavailability of Detective Recarey and various unnamed 'Epstein employees.' The text argues that fading memories and lost witnesses do not automatically justify dismissing the indictment. A footnote clarifies that Minor Victim-2 was interviewed by the FBI, but not by Detective Recarey.
DOJ-OGR-00002971.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) arguing that the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not involved in Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The Government asserts that communications between the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and SDNY were solely regarding an old civil lawsuit from the 1990s, not plea negotiations. The text refutes defense claims involving 'Main Justice' and provides context on an AUSA who left the SDNY in April 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
This legal document argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is binding only on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and not on other districts, such as the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support the claim that the NPA binds other districts, dismissing a privilege log from an investigation into Epstein as irrelevant to this specific point. The document concludes that the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law because the text of the NPA does not support a broader application.
DOJ-OGR-00002936.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. The filing appears to be a response from the prosecution arguing against motions made by the defendant, Maxwell. Key arguments outlined include the irrelevance of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement to this case, the timeliness of the indictment, and reasons why the defendant's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00004717.jpg
This legal document, filed on May 25, 2021, is a legal argument concerning the scope of plea agreements across different federal judicial districts. The author argues, based on Second Circuit precedent like Annabi, that a plea agreement from one district does not bind another unless explicitly stated. The document contrasts this with a broader interpretation from the Third Circuit (in United States v. Gebbie), which the defendant in the current case (Maxwell) is urging the court to adopt.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity