Southern District of Florida
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000065.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal opinion affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for 'Maxwell' (presumably Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses five appellate questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution and if her sentence was procedurally reasonable. The document also lists the attorneys involved for both the Appellee (United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York) and the Defendant-Appellant.
DOJ-OGR-00000063.tif
This document is a table of contents or index for a series of legal documents, including opinions, judgments, orders, and a non-prosecution agreement, spanning dates from 2007 to 2024. It references legal proceedings involving the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00000061.tif
This document, dated April 10, 2025, is a legal filing arguing for the granting of a petition for certiorari. It highlights a legal dispute regarding the enforceability of a government promise not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators, specifically mentioning Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution despite such a promise. David Oscar Markus, Counsel of Record from MARKUS/MOSS PLLC, is representing the petitioner.
DOJ-OGR-00000060.tif
This document excerpt discusses legal interpretations regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and the jurisdiction of United States Attorneys. It criticizes the Second Circuit's reliance on a selective reading of legal texts and highlights that the NPA was intended to resolve Epstein's state and federal criminal liability broadly, serving the interests of the United States and the State of Florida, not just a specific district.
DOJ-OGR-00000044.tif
This document outlines the procedural background of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from September 2007, where he agreed to plead guilty to state charges in Florida and serve an eighteen-month sentence, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing not to prosecute him for offenses from 2001-2007 and not to charge potential co-conspirators. It also highlights a legal inconsistency regarding the enforceability of such agreements across different circuit courts, referencing a motion to dismiss by Maxwell that would have been granted under different circumstances.
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-00023346.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal agreement where Epstein asserts and certifies his understanding of its terms. He acknowledges the right to a speedy trial but agrees to waive certain rights regarding prosecution delays and the method of charging (information instead of grand jury indictment) if a prosecution arises from a grand jury investigation. The agreement allows the United States to terminate it and prosecute Epstein or others for federal offenses if conditions are breached.
DOJ-OGR-00023342.tif
This document outlines an agreement to defer federal prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, contingent on his compliance with specific conditions and actions with the State Attorney's Office. The agreement, authorized by R. Alexander Acosta, states that federal prosecution will be deferred in favor of state prosecution, and if Epstein fulfills all terms, federal charges will be dismissed; however, if he violates the agreement, federal prosecution may be initiated.
DOJ-OGR-00023337.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal agreement or plea agreement involving Epstein. It details conditions of his plea, including waiving rights to challenge information and appeal, and not contesting the jurisdiction or victim status of minors. The agreement outlines the United States' obligations to provide a victim list and seek a guardian ad litem, and sets dates for Epstein's sentencing (September 28, 2007) and commencement of sentence (October 15, 2007).
DOJ-OGR-00023336.tif
This document outlines an agreement concerning Jeffrey Epstein, where federal prosecution by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is deferred in favor of state prosecution by the State of Florida, contingent on Epstein abiding by certain conditions. Epstein is required to plead guilty (nolo contendere) to charges including lewd and lascivious battery on a child, solicitation of minors for prostitution, and engaging in sexual activity with minors, with a joint recommendation for at least two years in prison without probation or community control.
DOJ-OGR-00023325.tif
This document is a review of documents obtained by OPR from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), the FBI, and other Department components related to the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. It details the types of records reviewed, including emails, correspondence, and investigative materials, and notes a data gap in Acosta's email records.
DOJ-OGR-00023321.tif
This document is a conclusion from an OPR report detailing the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by federal prosecutors. It outlines the Miami Herald's 2018 report, the subsequent OPR investigation into the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving R. Alexander Acosta, and the findings regarding victim rights violations. The report identifies five former USAO attorneys, including Acosta, as subjects of the investigation concerning their involvement in the NPA and victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023218.tif
This document excerpt discusses the internal deliberations and negotiations surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's potential sentencing and plea options. It highlights differing recollections among officials like Acosta, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman regarding how a two-year sentence proposal was reached, and details various charging alternatives considered by the USAO, including a plea to a federal offense with a harsher sentence or a conspiracy charge. The document also notes Epstein's team's consistent push for less or no jail time and the USAO's consideration of federal sentencing guidelines and judicial approval for plea deals.
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-00015138.jpg
This legal document outlines Ghislaine Maxwell's ongoing appeals process, including a denied petition at the Second Circuit and a pending petition before the Supreme Court as of July 2025, which argues her prosecution was barred by Jeffrey Epstein's prior non-prosecution agreement. The document also details a February 27, 2025, Department of Justice press release announcing the declassification and public release of files related to Epstein's crimes. The release features quotes from Attorney General Pamela Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, who both promise transparency and accountability.
DOJ-OGR-00015137.jpg
This legal document details the sentencing and subsequent appeal of a defendant named Maxwell. Judge Nathan imposed a 240-month prison sentence, citing Maxwell's direct and prolonged participation with Jeffrey Epstein in a sex trafficking scheme involving underage girls, and also sentenced her to a $750,000 fine. The document notes that on February 28, 2023, the Second Circuit court affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence, upholding the lower court's rulings on several key issues.
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-00015064.jpg
This document is a legal filing from July 29, 2025, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines the *In re Craig* factors for disclosing grand jury information and references a July 22, 2025 court order directing the Government to submit specific materials. These materials include indices, full transcripts, and proposed redacted versions of both Epstein and Maxwell grand jury proceedings, as well as confirmation regarding whether victims were notified of the motion to unseal.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00014876.jpg
This document is the final page (26) of a United States Court of Appeals ruling filed on January 23, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific arguments on appeal, including the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in Florida prevented her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014861.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the United States Attorney's Manual and the specific language of the agreement, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, to demonstrate that there was no intention to bind other federal districts from prosecuting Epstein. The document emphasizes that the agreement's scope is explicitly confined to 'this District' and defers to prosecution by the State of Florida.
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-00014854.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, and confirms that the statute of limitations was not violated. The document also notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000 and denied a new trial regarding juror conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00014852.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction for conspiracy, transportation of a minor for criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking. Maxwell's appeal raised five issues, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement barred her prosecution and other procedural matters. The court found no errors in the District Court's handling of the case and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity