Southern District of Florida
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
This legal document discusses the implications of setting aside a Non-Prosecution Agreement, particularly concerning the criminal prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. It cites several legal precedents emphasizing due process requirements for the government to adhere to plea bargains and the necessity of all contracting parties being involved in actions challenging a contract's validity. The document also touches upon the potential jurisdictional issues under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine if the Non-Prosecution Agreement were invalidated.
DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed by the United States government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The U.S. requests the dismissal of a petition filed by 'Jane Doe #1' and 'Jane Doe #2' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The primary argument for dismissal is that the court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction required to hear the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000294.jpg
This page contains sections 7 through 11 of a legal agreement (likely the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement) between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the protocol for identifying victims, appointing a representative for them (paid by Epstein), and handling civil liability claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Crucially, the text states that Epstein's agreement to pay damages or waive liability contests in specific federal contexts does not constitute a general admission of civil or criminal liability.
DOJ-OGR-00000292.jpg
This document is a page from a legal agreement detailing a deferred prosecution deal for Epstein. Under the authority of U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida for sex trafficking offenses will be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. The agreement stipulates that if Epstein violates its terms, federal prosecution can be initiated, but if he complies, all charges related to the joint FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office investigation will be dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000280.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 11, 2019, details the legal proceedings and agreements surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the jurisdictional complexities of his alleged crimes, the government's efforts to prosecute him despite a nonprosecution agreement (NPA) entered into with the USAO-SDFL in 2007, and the defense's arguments against the notion of flight risk, citing Epstein's history of international travel with returns to the U.S. and his intent to contest charges.
DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg
This document is the final page (page 26) of an appellate court decision dated September 17, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court lists five key holdings, rejecting Maxwell's arguments regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, the statute of limitations, a motion for a new trial, jury instructions, and sentencing reasonableness. The document concludes by explicitly affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00000012.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) arguing that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was legally limited only to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) and not binding on other federal districts. It cites the US Attorney's Manual and the specific text of the NPA authorized by R. Alexander Acosta to support the claim that the agreement contained limiting language regarding its scope. The text emphasizes that the negotiation history does not support an inference that the agreement was intended to apply nationwide.
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-00000010.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The text references a $750,000 fine imposed on Maxwell and cites legal precedent establishing that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district office where they are entered.
DOJ-OGR-00000005.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the issues presented on appeal regarding the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including arguments concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and juror impartiality. The court summarizes its holdings, stating that the NPA did not bind the prosecution in New York, the statute of limitations was not violated, and the motion for a new trial based on juror conduct was properly denied.
DOJ-OGR-00000003.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion dated September 17, 2024, regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction. The document outlines the five legal questions Maxwell raised on appeal, including issues related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, the statute of limitations, and jury conduct. The appellate court found no errors in the District Court's proceedings and affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00030392.jpg
This legal document, dated March 31, 2008, is a motion for a protective order filed by the law firm Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. on behalf of 'Witness Y. Doe'. The motion requests that the court order the witness's deposition for an unspecified criminal case and the civil case 'Jane Doe No. 3 v. Jeffrey Epstein' to be conducted simultaneously. The stated purpose is to prevent potential harassment of the witness by the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00030390.jpg
This document is a 'Motion for Protective Order' filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the case of State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion is filed by a witness/victim identified anonymously as 'Y. Doe' (also 'Jane Doe No. 3' in a federal civil case), requesting that her deposition scheduled for April 2, 2008, in the criminal case be conducted simultaneously with her deposition for the civil case. The document explicitly states that Y. Doe alleges she was sexually assaulted by Epstein when she was 16 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021099.jpg
This document is a page from a 2023 legal filing reviewing the historical handling of the Epstein case. It highlights that the investigation was national in scope, involving coordination between the Southern District of Florida and New York, and notes that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was specifically modified to broaden immunity for co-conspirators beyond just Florida. Crucially, it mentions investigators knew Epstein used hidden cameras in his NY home to record sexual encounters and that AUSA Villafana sought to investigate Epstein's assistants in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021076.jpg
This page from a 2023 court filing analyzes the text of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details that the FBI investigated Epstein for offenses committed between 2001 and 2007, and that the NPA was intended to 'globally' resolve his liability. The text explains that federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida was deferred in favor of state prosecution by Florida, provided Epstein abided by the terms.
DOJ-OGR-00020811.jpg
This document contains a summary of court rulings denying several motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, including motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy, untimeliness, multiplicity, and pre-indictment delay. It also addresses a motion to compel statements from 'Minor-Victim 4' and reiterates that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020807.jpg
This document is a signature page for an Addendum to Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It contains a statement certifying that Epstein understands the clarifications to the NPA and agrees to comply. The document is signed by Gerald Lefcourt (Epstein's counsel) on October 29, 2007, and by a representative of the U.S. Attorney's Office (marked FAUSA) on October 30, 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00020797.jpg
This page is part of a legal agreement detailing the terms under which the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, agrees to defer federal prosecution of Epstein. The deferral is in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, contingent upon Epstein's compliance with the agreement's conditions. The document also outlines the procedure for initiating federal prosecution, including a notice period, should Epstein violate the terms.
DOJ-OGR-00020763.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Annabi, the filing asserts that such agreements are limited to the district in which they are made unless they explicitly state a broader scope. The document refutes an opposing argument from an individual named Maxwell, stating the NPA lacks the necessary language to apply to other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00020761.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court summarizes its rulings, denying Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges based on Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement, untimeliness, vagueness, and grand jury venue issues. However, the Court grants Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury counts, ruling they will be tried separately from the sex trafficking/Mann Act charges.
DOJ-OGR-00015200.jpg
This is a court filing from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated October 28, 2009. Attorneys Jack Scarola and Jack P. Hill, representing an unnamed (redacted) Plaintiff, filed a notice confirming they served 'Second Amended Answers to Interrogatories' to the defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document notes that the original interrogatories were propounded by Epstein on January 16, 2009. It is marked as Defendant's Exhibit C-9 in a later criminal case (20 Cr. 330).
DOJ-OGR-00015196.jpg
This legal document is a 'Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories' filed in the Southern District of Florida on February 18, 2009. It certifies that the Plaintiff (whose name is redacted) has provided answers to questions (interrogatories) previously asked by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein on January 16, 2009. The document lists Sarah Kellen as a co-defendant and was prepared by attorney Jack Scarola of the firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. The document was later used as Defendant's Exhibit C-8 in the criminal trial S2 20 Cr. 330 (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00015191.jpg
This document is the first page of a "First Amended Complaint" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff's name is redacted, while the defendants are identified as Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. A stamp indicates the document was certified as a true copy by the court clerk on November 22, 2021.
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-00002535.jpg
This document is an executive summary of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) in 2007-2008. It outlines the factual background, starting with the 2005 Palm Beach Police Department investigation, the subsequent state indictment, and the referral to federal authorities. The summary details how the federal investigation led to a controversial non-prosecution agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2007, and notes that the OPR also investigated whether prosecutors committed misconduct by failing to consult with or misleading victims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity