Southern District of Florida
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Northern District of Georgia
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Northern District of Georgia prosecutors
|
Proxy |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Southern District of New York Prosecutors
|
No communication |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
SDNY
|
Professional distancing |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Jurisdictional dispute |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of New York
|
Jurisdictional separation |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Collaboration |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Non-prosecution agreement and investigation in Florida where victims' rights were violated. | Florida | View |
| 2007-09-24 | N/A | Execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). | Unknown | View |
| 2007-01-01 | Legal agreement | The Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) with the Southern District of Flor... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Period covered by the OPR report regarding the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jef... | Southern District of Florida | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022578.tif
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding or deposition, where Ghislaine Maxwell is being questioned by Todd Blanche. The discussion revolves around Jeffrey Epstein's alleged 'list' of masseuses, Maxwell's role in his household/office, and her non-involvement with law enforcement during the 2007-2009 investigation in the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00023204.tif
This document, an excerpt from a report, analyzes the non-prosecution provision within Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically examining whether key individuals (Villafaña, Lourie, Acosta) acted to improperly protect Epstein's associates. It details the evolution of the provision's language, from a narrow defense request to a broad clause covering 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' and notes the limited internal discussion within the USAO regarding its implications. The report concludes that emails and records do not establish improper favoritism but highlight a lack of substantive debate on the provision's broad scope.
DOJ-OGR-00015119.jpg
This legal document argues against the unsealing of grand jury materials related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing, made on behalf of unnamed third parties, contends that their privacy interests and the potential for irreparable harm outweigh any public interest in disclosure, citing legal precedent for grand jury secrecy. It also references a similar, recent decision in the Southern District of Florida regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation to support its position that the materials should remain sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00014860.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 2, 2024. It argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was limited solely to the Southern District of Florida and does not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites the 'Annabi' precedent to support the conclusion that the agreement does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00008408.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or filing, dated December 17, 2021, arguing against the admissibility of a prior 2008 decision not to indict Ms. Maxwell. The speaker contends that the reasons for the 2008 decision by officials in the Southern District of Florida are not relevant to the current case, would be prejudicial, and could cause juror confusion. This is contrasted with the 'White' case, where a prior charging decision was deemed admissible because it directly related to a witness's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00001805.jpg
This document is a legal letter filed on October 23, 2020, by attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense argues that the Government has failed to meet discovery deadlines promised during the July 14, 2020, initial conference, particularly regarding investigative files from the Southern District of Florida. The letter criticizes the Government's recent production as lacking substance, noting it consists largely of civil litigation documents and old records related to Jeffrey Epstein rather than the charged conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00001016.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, in which a government representative, Ms. Moe, outlines the scope of materials to be provided in discovery. These materials include search warrants, subpoena returns, electronic data, and files from a prior investigation in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Moe also updates the court on the status of a proposed protective order being negotiated with the defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000747.jpg
This legal memorandum is submitted by the Government in response to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. The Government outlines the legal framework for such a release, citing a 'Circuit split' on the issue and precedent from the Second Circuit, while emphasizing its duty to protect victims. It also references a prior, unsuccessful attempt to unseal similar transcripts related to Epstein in the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000659.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) filed on September 3, 2019. Epstein's defense counsel argues to the judge that Epstein's suicide on August 10 was 'implausible' given the pending legal motions scheduled for August 12, including a bail appeal and document production requests. The counsel also asserts that the initial autopsy findings on August 11 were inconclusive and reiterates the defense stance that the New York prosecution violated the Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00000572.jpg
This document is page 62 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, appearing to be a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). A prosecutor argues against the defendant's request for home detention, describing it as a 'gilded cage' and 'private jail' that necessitates actual detention. The prosecutor also clarifies that the SDNY case was independently investigated by the FBI, CBP, and NYPD, explicitly stating there was no coordination with the Southern District of Florida regarding the initiation of this specific case.
DOJ-OGR-00000533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that the timing of Epstein's arrest was suspicious relative to a CVRA filing in Florida. He asserts that high-level DOJ officials, specifically Alice Fisher (then Head of the Criminal Division) and Sigal Mandelker (currently Undersecretary of the Treasury), were directly involved in approving the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000428.jpg
A transcript page from a July 16, 2019 court hearing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Prosecutor Rossmiller argues that the previous non-prosecution agreement was limited to the Southern District of Florida and that current charges involve New York victims, distinct from previous conduct. The Judge interrupts to object to the minimization of 'statutory rape' with the word 'only'.
DOJ-OGR-00000419.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 16, 2019, capturing a dialogue between Mr. Weingarten and the Court. The discussion centers on a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida, referencing a prior ruling by Judge Marra who found that prosecutors failed to properly notify victims about the deal. The Court also inquires about the geographic limitations of such agreements, a point Mr. Weingarten identifies as a key issue for future pretrial motions.
DOJ-OGR-00000398.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. An attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, argues before a judge that a nonprosecution agreement made in the Southern District of Florida was understood by that district to be limited in scope, and therefore does not impede a separate prosecution in the Southern District of New York. This argument is intended to counter the defense's position and validate the ongoing investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000397.jpg
This is page 11 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues to The Court that the discussion should concern the scope of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), not its legality. He references a filing by Northern District of Georgia prosecutors (acting for Southern District of Florida) before Judge Marrah that supported the NPA's constitutionality and asserted Epstein fulfilled his obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00000396.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript where a defense attorney argues against the legality of a prosecution. The attorney claims the government is improperly relying on old evidence from a 2007 Florida case and is violating established Department of Justice procedure by prosecuting the same conduct in a second jurisdiction (Georgia) after it was handled in the first (Florida).
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-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-00015147.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing dated August 11, 2025, discussing the Government's motion to unseal grand jury materials related to Ghislaine Maxwell based on 'special circumstances' and public interest in the Epstein investigation. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum regarding the Government's review of the investigation and notes that a separate court in the Southern District of Florida recently denied a similar motion on July 23, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00001889.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Moe addresses the court regarding the status of discovery, noting that materials will include search warrant returns, electronic data, and prior investigative files from the Southern District of Florida (referencing the earlier Epstein investigation). The government is waiting for a protective order to be finalized with defense counsel before producing the first batch of discovery.
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-00021758.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intentionally drafted to provide immunity beyond the Southern District of Florida, evidenced by the removal of limiting language and its replacement with 'United States.' It also refutes the Government's claim that 'Main Justice' was not involved, citing OPR records showing Andrew C. Lourie (Deputy Assistant Attorney General) actively participated in negotiations from Washington, D.C. in September 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021684.jpg
Page 24 (PDF page 37) of a legal brief in Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal). The text argues against Maxwell's claim that Eleventh Circuit law should apply to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), asserting that the court should follow its own precedents (Annabi) and that the governing law is that of the forum state. It cites multiple cases to support the application of local circuit law over the law where a plea agreement was originally negotiated.
DOJ-OGR-00021257.jpg
This is a letter dated August 3, 2007, from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Lilly Ann Sanchez. Acosta formally rejects a proposal from Sanchez, reiterating that a two-year state prison term is the minimum requirement to avoid federal prosecution and is not a starting point for negotiations. The letter clarifies the office's preference for a federal sentence and warns that once an indictment is returned, the possibility for flexible plea negotiations will end.
DOJ-OGR-00021239.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a report (likely by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility) reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. It details Alexander Acosta's justification for the non-prosecution agreement, citing the difficulty of federal trafficking prosecutions at the time (2006-2007) and a preference for state resolution. The document also discusses the legal strategy regarding Rule 11(c) binding pleas and the interaction between federal and state prosecutors, noting the State Attorney's Office desire for 'political cover'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity