11th Circuit Court of Appeals
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-14 | Court ruling | 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denies Mandamus petition. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | 11th Circuit Court decision in In re Wild regarding Jeffrey Epstein case. | 11th Circuit | View |
EFTA00016451.pdf
An email dated May 28, 2020, discussing a recent legal decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (*In re Wild*). The court ruled that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was not triggered in the Jeffrey Epstein case because the government entered a non-prosecution agreement rather than initiating criminal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000805.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court filing (Document 32) from July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein. The text details the Court's finding that Epstein is a 'flight risk' based on a Pretrial Services Report citing his extensive foreign travel, international ties, unexplained assets, and criminal history. It also outlines the seriousness of the charges against him, specifically the alleged sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach involving the facilitation by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00000493.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The court finds Epstein to be a flight risk based on factors including extensive foreign travel, international financial ties, unexplained assets, and his criminal history. The text also outlines the severity of the charges against him, specifically the sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach, allegedly facilitated by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00021390.jpg
This document is a timeline detailing key events from 2006 to 2020 related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines actions taken by the FBI, USAO, and DOJ officials, including Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, regarding victim interviews and notifications surrounding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and state court plea. The timeline also tracks subsequent legal challenges by victims, court rulings on CVRA violations, and major developments in the case, such as Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
This document is a page of handwritten legal notes filed on October 12, 2021, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents a legal argument focusing on 'Plain Language' statutory interpretation, specifically distinguishing between 'exploitation' and 'sexual or physical abuse.' The author cites several legal precedents (Patterson v. Schriro, US v. Pharis, US v. Dodge) and criticizes the Fifth Circuit for ignoring guidance regarding statutory construction and the misfiling of statute of limitation language in 1990.
DOJ-OGR-00023228.jpg
This document is a timeline graphic from a Department of Justice report detailing key events surrounding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) analysis in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It tracks internal DOJ communications, victim notifications, and court actions from 2006 to 2008, with an additional sidebar covering legal developments up to 2020. Key events include the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the deferral of victim notification regarding the plea deal, and subsequent court rulings finding that the U.S. violated the CVRA.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021945.jpg
This document is page 122 of a rough draft transcript from a legal deposition, likely related to a House Oversight investigation. Attorney Mr. Simpson questions a witness (a former prosecutor from the Eastern District of Virginia) about the admissibility of a third party's Fifth Amendment invocation as evidence in criminal versus civil cases. Mr. Scarola is also present as counsel. The witness discusses their experience with approximately 20 trials involving drug dealers and gun runners but cannot recall specific instances of using the Fifth Amendment in the manner described.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021941.jpg
This document is page 118 of a rough draft transcript, likely from a Congressional hearing or deposition (marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT). The dialogue concerns a previous deposition where a subject (possibly Mr. Dershowitz or an associate like Epstein) broadly invoked the Fifth Amendment and used tactics to feign ignorance of people he knew. The witness and questioner discuss the legal implications of taking the Fifth in civil litigation within the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuit (Florida), specifically whether one person's invocation can be used as evidence against another.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity