U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York charged Maxwell. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-07-02 | Legal action | The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York obtained a federal grand jury in... | New York | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Investigation | The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opened its investigation into Je... | Southern District of New York | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009676.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) for the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 9, 2022. The juror responds to a series of questions, denying any personal knowledge of or past/present dealings with the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any of the named prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The juror consistently answers "No" to all questions regarding personal relationships with case participants.
DOJ-OGR-00009675.jpg
This document is page 14 of a filed court document (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 9, 2022. It contains a portion of a questionnaire filled out by Juror ID 50. The juror answers 'No' to having any association with the NYPD and 'No' to having any opinion of U.S. Attorneys Damian Williams or Audrey Strauss that would affect their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00003183.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the timeline following Jeffrey Epstein's August 2019 suicide, including the dismissal of his indictment in SDNY and the conclusion of CVRA litigation in Florida where the court found the government had not litigated in bad faith but had violated the CVRA. It summarizes the appellate history of 'Jane Doe 1' seeking a writ of mandamus in the 11th Circuit regarding the non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Additionally, it marks the initiation of the OPR investigation into DOJ attorney misconduct, triggered by a request from Senator Ben Sasse following the Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting.
DOJ-OGR-00003182.jpg
This legal document outlines the aftermath of a November 2018 Miami Herald report concerning Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It details a February 2019 court ruling that found the government violated victims' rights, leading to the recusal of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The document then describes Epstein's subsequent federal indictment and arrest in New York in July 2019, and the resignation of government official Acosta following a press conference where he defended his role in the original NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00002964.jpg
This legal document is an argument by the prosecution against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant to the current case. The key reasons are that the defendant was not a party to the NPA, the agreement is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (where the case is being tried), and the NPA does not provide immunity for the specific crimes with which the defendant is charged.
DOJ-OGR-00005294.jpg
This document is page 18 (marked -17- at the bottom) of a juror questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The page focuses on establishing whether potential jurors have personal relationships or dealings with key figures in the case, including the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and the prosecuting U.S. Attorneys (Damian Williams, Audrey Strauss, Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity