Criminal Division
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Laura Johnson
|
Judicial authority |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense team
|
Negotiation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
OPR
|
Provided data to |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted a review of hundreds of thousands of pa... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR investigated a gap in Acosta's emails related to the Epstein investigation, questioning Acost... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal Division providing OPR with Outlook data (inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, saved emails, ca... | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-01 | N/A | The Department's Review of federal jurisdiction issues raised by Epstein's defense. | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2008-05-15 | N/A | Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division | DOJ | View |
| 2008-03-01 | N/A | Meeting in Washington between the defense team and representatives of the criminal division and C... | Washington | View |
EFTA00037487.pdf
An internal email chain from the FBI New York Office dated August 27, 2019. A Special Agent in Charge suggests re-issuing a public request for additional Epstein victims to come forward in response to heavy media coverage that day; a colleague replies agreeing that it is a good idea.
EFTA00031314.pdf
This document is an email chain from May 7, 2019, initiated by the Executive Director of the Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking. The director forwarded a Virgin Islands Daily News article titled 'Epstein building compound on Great St. James' to an individual in a 'Criminal Division' (likely DOJ), who then forwarded it to another colleague noting they were sending it 'just in case' it was significant.
EFTA00028929.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
EFTA00022431.pdf
An email chain from April 2019 originating from Conchita Sarnoff, forwarding a Miami Herald article about a new Epstein accuser. Sarnoff highlights allegations that victims were lured with promises of modeling for Victoria's Secret or MC2 (owned by an Epstein associate). A Criminal Division official forwards this internally, noting they are glad the 'investing' (likely investigating) continues to advance.
EFTA00019883.pdf
This document is an email chain from February 2020 between USANYS employees regarding a 'Criminal Division update.' There was initial confusion about the deadline, with one email stating it was moved to August 14th to stop 'panic mode,' but subsequent emails clarifying that a report was indeed due that Friday (Feb 14). The final email attaches a document titled 'PC_Unit__Short_Form_Update.2.14.20v2.docx'.
EFTA00013555.pdf
A formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys, Jay Lefkowitz and Kenneth Starr, dated June 23, 2008. The DOJ states they have reviewed the attorneys' complaints regarding the U.S. Attorney's handling of the Epstein case but decline to intervene, affirming that federal prosecution is appropriate and dismissing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Alex Acosta is copied on the correspondence.
EFTA00010471.pdf
This document contains draft remarks prepared for the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI New York Field Office regarding the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein in July 2019. The remarks detail charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy involving dozens of minor girls in New York and Florida between 2002 and 2005, describe the recruitment methods involving cash payments, and issue a public plea for other victims to contact the FBI.
DOJ-OGR-00000211.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, likely a brief or memo, discussing the limited scope of various agreements made by different United States Attorney's Offices and divisions of the Department of Justice. It references several legal cases, including United States v. Lafarge S.A., United States v. Goldfield, United States v. Ellison (likely Caroline Ellison), and United States v. Coccagna, providing case numbers, ECF filings, and dates, and notes the non-binding nature of these agreements on other federal, state, local, or foreign authorities.
DOJ-OGR-00000073.tif
This document discusses the scope and negotiation history of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein and the USAO-SDFL, examining whether it was intended to bind other districts like USAO-SDNY. It cites the United States Attorney's Manual regarding the approval process for agreements and notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied having a role in Epstein's NPA. The document also mentions that prosecution in Florida was deferred in favor of state prosecution, provided Epstein adhered to the agreement's conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif
This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00023144.tif
This document details a March 12, 2008 meeting involving Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz, Weinberg) and Department of Justice representatives (Oosterbaan, Mandelker, CEOS Deputy Chief) concerning the Epstein case. It outlines concerns raised by the defense regarding USAO actions, including communication issues with state authorities and a purported relationship between USAO official Sloman and a law firm representing victims. The document also mentions Sloman's prior work in private practice specializing in sexual abuse claims.
DOJ-OGR-00023326.tif
This document details findings from an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into email records related to the Epstein case. It covers email migration, an email gap in Acosta's inbox attributed to a technological error, and OPR's efforts to obtain email and calendar data from various Department of Justice entities, including the FBI, Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to reconstruct communications concerning the Epstein investigation.
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-00000534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorneys Weinberg and Rossmiller discuss the history of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Court, specifically referencing a March 2008 meeting in Washington between the defense and the DOJ's Criminal Division/Child Exploitation Unit. The discussion highlights that the defense argued the case lacked interstate elements needed for federal prosecution, and the DOJ subsequently issued a letter in May 2008 endorsing prosecutorial discretion due to the 'unusual' facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000316.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 9, 2019, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein does not prevent the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against him in other districts. It cites legal precedent and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to assert that the original agreement made by the USAO-SDFL was not binding on other jurisdictions like the Southern District of New York or the District of New Jersey. The document also addresses the rights of petitioners (victims) under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), stating they have not been denied the ability to confer with the government about potential charges against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00000013.jpg
This legal document argues that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not bound by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). It cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to assert that the authority of a U.S. Attorney is limited to their specific district, a point reinforced by an Assistant Attorney General who stated she played no role in the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00002540.jpg
This legal document outlines the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a February 21, 2019, court ruling that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) violated victims' rights, the OPR's review examined government conduct, collected extensive records, and conducted over 60 interviews. The investigation identified five subjects, including former U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their roles in the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and related decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021889.jpg
This legal document page discusses the jurisdictional limits of U.S. Attorneys' offices in the context of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It states that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not notified of the NPA made by the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), and that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any involvement. The text argues, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, that a U.S. Attorney's authority is confined to their specific district and does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021490.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into a significant gap in the email records of an individual named Acosta, specifically from May 2007 to April 2008. The investigation, which was related to the Epstein case, involved questioning witnesses and analyzing data from multiple U.S. Attorney's Offices, the FBI, and other Justice Department divisions. OPR concluded that the email gap was most likely due to a technological error rather than an intentional act to conceal evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021419.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the conflict and confusion regarding victim notification in the Epstein case. It highlights discrepancies between USAO officials (Sloman, Acosta) and DOJ Criminal Division (Mandelker) regarding who decided to defer victim notification to state authorities. It also includes excerpts from Epstein's lawyer, Lefkowitz, aggressively arguing that federal victims had no standing in the state case and should not be contacted by the FBI or informed of 'fictitious rights.'
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
This legal document details a professional conflict between two government attorneys, Villafaña and Menchel, over plea negotiations in the case of Mr. Epstein. Villafaña accused Menchel, her superior, of violating victims' rights by not consulting them, while Menchel defended his discretionary authority and criticized Villafaña's actions and judgment. The document reveals that on the same day Villafaña criticized Menchel, she herself contacted the defense (Sanchez) about a potential resolution without first speaking to the victims, highlighting the complexities and differing interpretations of prosecutorial obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00021359.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report concludes that the frequency of meetings between USAO officials (Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense team (Starr, Lefkowitz) was not evidence of improper favoritism, given the high-profile nature of the case and the resources of the defendant. It details specific meetings in late 2007 and early 2008, noting that despite defense efforts to involve higher-level DOJ officials (Fisher, Filip), the USAO maintained its position on the federal investigation and the NPA. The report ultimately finds no evidence that these meetings resulted in substantial improper benefits to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021309.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal review of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2008. It describes how Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and prosecutor John Roth reviewed defense appeals (initiated by Ken Starr) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), with Filip ultimately dismissing the defense's arguments as 'ludicrous' and refusing to meet with Epstein. The text also highlights prosecutor Marie Villafaña's sarcastic and angry reaction to learning that State Attorney Barry Krischer had secretly negotiated a light 90-day jail sentence for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity