Southern District of Florida
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
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-00030433.jpg
This is the first page of a civil complaint filed on January 24, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 08-80069). The plaintiffs are a minor identified as Jane Doe No. 1, along with her father and stepmother, filing against Jeffrey Epstein. The complaint alleges sexual assault and abuse, noting that fictitious names are used to protect the minor's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00021903.jpg
This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.
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-00021881.jpg
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
This page from a legal filing (stamped 2024 but discussing historical legal arguments) analyzes the scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the NPA and the actions of the USAO-SDFL (under R. Alexander Acosta) were limited to the Southern District of Florida and were not intended to bind other federal districts, citing the United States Attorney's Manual. A footnote quotes the specific language of the NPA where federal prosecution is deferred in favor of state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021851.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in New York, affirms that the indictment complied with the statute of limitations, and denies that a juror's erroneous answers during voir dire warranted a new trial. The document notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000.
DOJ-OGR-00021849.jpg
This page is from an appellate court decision affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her sentence (concurrent terms totaling 240 months) for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The court rejects her five grounds for appeal, which included arguments about Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and jury impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00021832.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, discussing the legal interpretation of Jeffrey Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines the background of the NPA, noting that in exchange for a guilty plea to state charges and an 18-month sentence, the USAO-SDFL agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his potential co-conspirators (referencing four specific but unnamed individuals) for federal offenses committed between 2001 and 2007. The central legal issue presented is whether the Second Circuit's precedent in *Annabi*, which favors the government in ambiguous plea agreements, should be overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00021806.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) discussing the legal validity and scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the USAO-SDNY was not notified of, nor did it approve, the NPA created by the USAO-SDFL, and cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that one US Attorney's actions in a specific district do not bind other districts or the nation. It also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division confirmed to the Office of Professional Responsibility that she had no role in the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021805.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited in scope to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the agreement's text, the negotiation history, and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to support the claim that the NPA was not intended to bind other districts from prosecuting Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021796.jpg
This document is page 2 of an appellate court opinion affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the charges she was convicted of (sex trafficking, conspiracy), her sentence (concurrent terms up to 240 months), and rejects five specific arguments raised on appeal, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and claims of jury bias. The court concludes by affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022 judgment.
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-00021757.jpg
This legal document discusses an unusual co-conspirator clause in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein. It reveals that Epstein's defense team initially proposed a broad immunity deal to protect third parties, including "four named female assistants" and other employees like Ms. Maxwell, from any future criminal charges related to the federal investigation. The Government found this proposal "unusual" and countered with a more limited offer confined to the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
This document is page 27 of a legal filing (dated June 29, 2023) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the District Court (Judge Nathan) correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss without a hearing because the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida were clear and did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. A footnote clarifies that even if the NPA applied, it would only cover specific counts (Count Six) and not others (Counts Three and Four) involving different victims and time periods.
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell cannot enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Jeffrey Epstein. The reasoning is twofold: first, Maxwell was not named as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement, and second, the NPA's terms are explicitly limited to prosecutions brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) within that specific district, and therefore do not bar the current charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
DOJ-OGR-00021510.jpg
This document is page 6 of 7 of a legal agreement (likely the Non-Prosecution Agreement) between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States. In this section, Epstein acknowledges that breaching the agreement allows the US to prosecute him for federal offenses. He explicitly waives his Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial regarding any delays caused by this agreement and waives his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury, consenting instead to be charged via Information.
DOJ-OGR-00021508.jpg
This legal document, part of a larger agreement, outlines the terms under which Jeffrey Epstein will address civil claims from victims identified by the United States government. Epstein agrees that after he is sentenced, the U.S. will provide a list of victims to his attorneys, and he will pay for an attorney representative for them. For any victims who file suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein agrees not to contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and waives his right to contest liability and damages up to an agreed-upon amount, with the stipulation that this agreement is not an admission of liability for any other purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00021501.jpg
This legal document outlines several terms of an agreement with Epstein, stipulating that he must waive challenges to information from the State Attorney's Office, enter a guilty plea by September 28, 2007, and begin his sentence by October 15, 2007. In exchange, the United States will provide his attorneys with a list of up to forty victims and move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The document also details Epstein's waiver of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021500.jpg
This page is part of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (R. Alexander Acosta). It outlines that federal prosecution is deferred provided Epstein pleads guilty to specific Florida state charges regarding minors and serves at least two years in prison. The document details the specific statutes violated, including lewd and lascivious battery on a child and solicitation of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021485.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report concerning the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a 2018 Miami Herald article, the OPR investigated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The report identifies five former federal prosecutors, including former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, as subjects of the investigation for their roles in negotiating and executing the controversial deal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity