U.S. ATTORNEY
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Attorney General
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
EFTA00035935.pdf
This document is a draft DOJ OIG report investigating the Bureau of Prisons' supervision of Jeffrey Epstein at MCC New York during the night of his death (August 9-10, 2019). It details how staffing shortages led to a 'Material Handler' working 24 consecutive hours; this employee and another officer ('Noel') failed to conduct mandatory 30-minute rounds or the 10:00 p.m. inmate count because they were 'tired' and instead spent the night surfing the internet. The report confirms that records were falsified to show counts were completed, noting that no officer entered Epstein's tier between 10:40 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
EFTA00018543.pdf
This document is an email thread dated June 8, 2020, between U.S. Attorneys Geoffrey Berman (SDNY) and Gretchen Shappert (USVI). Shappert initiates the exchange citing 'coordination issues' regarding their respective investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and requests a supervisor contact. Berman replies, copying two redacted individuals to assist with the coordination.
EFTA00018159.pdf
This document contains an email chain between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Virgin Islands and SDNY) and the U.S. Marshal Service regarding an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein for violating International Megan's Law (IML). The USMS Senior Inspector reports that Epstein signed a duty to report travel form on March 15, 2019, but subsequently failed to report two international trips: one to Vienna, Austria on March 22, 2019 (accompanied by three female passengers), and one to Morocco on April 25, 2019. The officials express concern that leaking this information could hamper the ongoing investigation given Epstein's resources.
EFTA00014187.pdf
This document is a Court Order from August 2008 in the civil case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth Marra denied Epstein's motion to stay (pause) the civil lawsuit. Epstein had argued that the case should be paused because of a 'pending' criminal action (referencing ongoing grand jury subpoenas and his deferred prosecution agreement), but the judge ruled that an investigation or deferred prosecution does not meet the legal definition of a 'pending criminal action' under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k).
EFTA00014185.pdf
Order from the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida) dated August 4, 2008, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion to file a reply brief under seal in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that the public interest in access to court records outweighed the U.S. Attorney's objections and the confidentiality clause in Epstein's agreement with the government, ordering the Clerk to unseal relevant docket entries.
EFTA00013586.pdf
This email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney to Alex Acosta on August 12, 2008, discusses the unsealing of Tein's reply brief in the Epstein civil litigation, highlighting Tein's extensive quoting from a "highly unusual and unprecedented deferred-prosecution agreement." The sender also notes they have not received an update from Roy Black regarding a defense agreement filed with the state court.
EFTA00010135.pdf
An email dated June 8, 2020, from U.S. Attorney for the Virgin Islands Gretchen Shappert to U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman. Shappert raises concerns about coordination issues regarding the parallel SDNY and USVI investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and requests to speak with one of Berman's supervisors.
DOJ-OGR-00000190.tif
This document discusses the legal proceedings and agreements related to Epstein, detailing how his sentencing was handled and reduced. It highlights Acosta's role in approving the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and references an email exchange between the State Attorney and Villafaña regarding the resolution of the case. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that the agreement allowed Epstein to resolve a federal investigation for an 18-month state sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00001068.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed 04/01/2021) appearing to be from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 21-770). Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues during a bail proceeding that the government's indictment relies on 25-year-old conduct specifically to circumvent the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). He cites the 'Annabi case' regarding the scope of plea agreements and claims the prosecution's strategy is tactical.
DOJ-OGR-00000580.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a discussion between a judge and several lawyers. The conversation covers an agreement between the U.S. Attorney and defense counsel regarding whether trustees or guards will be armed. Attorney Mr. Boies, representing a victim, interrupts to clarify that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 were made by the defendant at a time when a legal proceeding was pending, contradicting a prior statement by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000395.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (SDNY). The prosecution argues that the Southern District of New York is not bound by the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg counters that the NPA provided Epstein with immunity for the conduct currently being prosecuted, including interstate travel and communications, and asserts that Epstein fulfilled the terms of that agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00001941.jpg
This document is page 64 of a court transcript from a bail proceeding filed on December 10, 2020 (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Cohen argues that the government is using tactics to circumvent the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by indicting conduct that is 25 years old. He cites the 'Annabi case' regarding the reach of plea agreements binding U.S. Attorney offices.
DOJ-OGR-00021948.jpg
This document is page 7 of 8 from a court filing (Document 9) dated November 19, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (related to the prosecution of Epstein's guards, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas). It displays a map outlining the jurisdictional boundaries of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), listing the specific counties included in each district. There are handwritten notes in the bottom right corner that appear to read 'DNO' and 'EDPA'.
DOJ-OGR-00021940.jpg
This document is page 9 of a 10-page court filing from November 19, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. It is part of an "Advice of Penalties" form and consists of a map and a list defining the counties that fall under the jurisdiction of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York federal courts. The document is marked with a Department of Justice Bates number, indicating it was produced as part of a legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00021760.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on July 27, 2023, arguing for the enforcement of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The text contends that because the Government drafted the NPA with unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities should be resolved against the Government, and that Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the agreement before his death. It specifically mentions the 'co-conspirator clause' being understood as global and argues the Government cannot retroactively restrict the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021383.jpg
This page from an OPR report discusses the handling of the Epstein case, concluding that prosecutors did not intend to benefit Epstein but that the outcome resulted from Acosta's concerns about state authority. It highlights communication failures within the team, noting that while Acosta was unusually involved in decision-making, he was removed from the supervisory chain and may not have been fully aware of critical details known by staff members like Villafaña.
DOJ-OGR-00021336.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzes the decision by former U.S. Attorney Acosta to use a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to resolve the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that Acosta did not commit misconduct, as there was no clear and unambiguous statute or policy in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) that prohibited the use of an NPA in circumstances like Epstein's, where it was not in exchange for cooperation. The document affirms the broad discretion prosecutors hold in making such decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021272.jpg
This legal document from a court filing details plea negotiations concerning Jeffrey Epstein on September 18, 2007. Prosecutor Villafaña rejected a proposal from Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz, for a 12-month sentence, insisting the U.S. Attorney required at least 18 months. The document includes a detailed email from Villafaña to her colleagues outlining the stalled negotiations and subsequent discussions with Lefkowitz about an alternative plea structure involving two separate charges.
DOJ-OGR-00019572.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues for the continued sealing of certain court documents, with redactions, to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial from pretrial publicity. The filing references the government's own public statements about its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associates as evidence of the high-profile nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019282.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on September 10, 2020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case 20-3061, United States v. Maxwell). Attorney Adam Mueller, representing Ghislaine Maxwell, is requesting leave to file an unredacted motion to consolidate under seal. The document indicates that opposing counsel, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, does not oppose the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00031409.jpg
This document is a faxed page from a 2008 article (likely 'The Fantasist') sent to the State Attorney's Office. It details Epstein's relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell, testimony from housemen Juan Alessi and Alfredo Rodriguez regarding underage girls and sex toys, and Epstein's philosophical justification of wealth inequality. It also contrasts the wealth of Palm Beach with the poverty of West Palm Beach, specifically mentioning Haley Robson and a 14-year-old associate.
DOJ-OGR-00002818.jpg
This legal filing argues against a subpoena issued by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) to BSF, claiming the requested documents are either procurable from the government or are items (boots and photographs) better produced at trial if relevant. The document specifically mentions photographs connecting the Defendant, Virginia Giuffre, and Prince Andrew at a London townhome, as well as items related to Annie and Maria Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00002883.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a submission by Sigrid S. McCawley arguing against a defendant's motion to subpoena evidence from a third party, BSF. The document contends that the requested materials—including communications, a Grand Jury subpoena, cowboy boots, and photographs involving individuals like Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Jeffrey Epstein—are either obtainable from the government or not relevant enough to require pre-trial production. The author concludes that the defendant's motion should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00002879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing arguing that a subpoena issued by a defendant should be quashed. The filing contends that the subpoena fails to meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), as established in the case United States v. Nixon, because it is an overly broad "fishing expedition" seeking "all communications" with various individuals from the law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00002816.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a filing in a criminal case arguing against the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) discovery requests. The filing contends that requests for communications about co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel, fee agreements with victims Annie and Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer's complete teenage journal, and materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program are irrelevant and improper 'fishing expeditions' for impeachment material. The document cites case law to assert that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the relevance and admissibility of the requested evidence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity