BOP
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Institutional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Detainee custodian |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional separate agencies |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed defendant
|
Custodial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Prosecution team
|
Separate entities |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
correctional officers
|
Employer regulator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Employee |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kathleen Hawks Sawyer
|
Acting commissioner |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Organizational |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
DOJ JMD Budget Staff
|
Oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Prosecution Team
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OIG
|
Oversight audit |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
ALS
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
DOJ
|
Departmental |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Governmental |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
U.S. Attorney's Office
|
Governmental administrative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
USAO
|
Professional strained |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's office
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Times of India
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GAO
|
Oversight |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Contractor (Unnamed)
|
Service provider |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Custodial adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
OIG
|
Oversight auditing |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Custodian inmate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Mistreatment | Ms. Maxwell is allegedly being subjected to harsh prison conditions, including constant flashligh... | prison | View |
| N/A | Policy change | The BOP suspended all in-person visits, including legal visits, due to the spread of COVID-19. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A separate investigation conducted by the BOP. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | An internal BOP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s suicide. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | The BOP investigated the defendant's complaints of physical abuse and concluded they were unfounded. | MDC | View |
| N/A | Detention/imprisonment | Ms. Maxwell is being held in custody under poor conditions, including being kept up at night, giv... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Death in custody | Jeffrey Epstein died while under the supervision of the BOP. | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-17 | N/A | Routine purging of inmate emails per BOP policy | MDC | View |
| 2025-01-01 | N/A | BOP expects to receive updated analysis on the impact of staffing on inmate programming. | N/A | View |
| 2024-10-01 | N/A | Automated Staffing Tool (AST) went live officially. | System-wide | View |
| 2024-10-01 | N/A | Automated Staffing Tool (AST) officially went live for all FBOP professions. | Nationwide | View |
| 2024-06-01 | N/A | New monthly Security Camera Report became effective. | All facilities | View |
| 2024-01-01 | N/A | FBOP received nationwide Direct Hire Authority (DHA) approval. | Nationwide | View |
| 2024-01-01 | N/A | Anticipated full implementation of staffing tool covering all regions and disciplines. | All BOP Regions | View |
| 2023-06-26 | N/A | OIG Final Report released regarding Jeffrey Epstein's custody and supervision. | New York, New York | View |
| 2023-01-01 | N/A | BOP released Incentives Playbook. | N/A | View |
| 2022-01-01 | N/A | Contractor completed assessment and developed automated staffing tool prototype; finalized risk a... | N/A | View |
| 2021-11-23 | N/A | Multiple FOIA requests filed by ABC, CNN, and MuckRack. | N/A | View |
| 2021-08-19 | Court order | Judge Nathan ordered the Government to confer with BOP and MDC Legal and respond to the defendant... | N/A | View |
| 2021-07-02 | N/A | Production of Epstein materials to the Times (FOIA release) | New York | View |
| 2021-06-25 | N/A | Deadline for BOP to produce documents in Epstein FOIA | N/A | View |
| 2021-05-14 | N/A | Judge Nathan issues order regarding MDC sleep disruption and security protocols for Maxwell. | SDNY Court | View |
| 2021-02-02 | N/A | Judge Nathan denies BOP's request to vacate the Jan 15, 2021 Order regarding MDC Laptop Access. | Court | View |
| 2021-01-15 | N/A | Email correspondence regarding FOIA case 20-cv-833 (Times v. BOP) | N/A | View |
| 2021-01-01 | N/A | BOP reported hiring a contractor to assist in calculating staffing levels. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the reconsideration of a bail decision for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (United States v. Lee, Bradshaw, Rowe, and Petrov) to establish that the Court has the inherent authority to reopen a bail hearing, especially when new evidence is presented. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial new information, including over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government, which was unavailable at her initial hearing and raises questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001946.jpg
This is page 69 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 10, 2020. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney is arguing before the judge regarding her continued detention, stating that the government's cited case law regarding COVID-19 risks involves dangerous felons and is not relevant to Maxwell's situation. The attorney emphasizes the impossibility of preparing for trial with only four months of discovery while unable to meet the client in person due to BOP restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00001943.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, detailing a discussion between attorney Mr. Cohen and The Court. Mr. Cohen describes the severe, solitary confinement-like conditions his client endured at the MDC, including denial of basic rights and access to legal counsel, and requests more time to address the court's concerns regarding financial matters. The Court seeks clarification on the nature of the client's detention, specifically if there was consent.
DOJ-OGR-00001872.jpg
This legal document, filed by counsel for Ms. Maxwell, argues that her pretrial detention conditions are excessively punitive and amount to de facto solitary confinement. The filing details sleep deprivation, constant surveillance, and frequent, invasive body scans and strip searches, asserting these measures are detrimental to her health and ability to prepare for trial. The counsel contrasts these conditions with those of other clients, including those charged with terrorism and murder, to highlight their unprecedented severity.
DOJ-OGR-00001840.jpg
This document is a legal letter from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan, filed on November 24, 2020, regarding the pretrial detention conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. The defense alleges excessive surveillance, sleep deprivation via flashlight checks every 15 minutes, and isolation, requesting that Warden Heriberto Tellez be summoned to address the court. The document includes a hand-signed order by Judge Nathan requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding the request for the Warden to address these concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00001838.jpg
This is the second page of a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, dated November 24, 2020. The letter complains to the Court about the harsh conditions of Maxwell's pretrial detention at the MDC, describing them as worse than those for terrorists at ADMAX, citing sleep deprivation via flashlight checks every 15 minutes, excessive surveillance, and isolation. Sternheim requests that Warden Heriberto Tellez be summoned to report directly to the Court regarding these conditions and notes the difficulty Maxwell faces in reviewing 1.2 million discovery documents under her current restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00001811.jpg
This legal document is a letter from defense counsel Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated October 23, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The letter complains that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) are severely hindering Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense by preventing counsel from reviewing documents with her effectively during legal visits. The defense requests the Court to order the BOP to allow them to pass legal papers to Ms. Maxwell for review and suggests a status conference to address these ongoing issues.
DOJ-OGR-00022137.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 3 of 5) of a legal agreement filed on May 25, 2021, and dated May 20, 2021. The agreement stipulates that if the defendant successfully completes their term of supervision, the Government will move to dismiss the indictment. The document is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Lonergan on behalf of Audrey Struass, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00022130.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated May 20, 2021. The text is upside down in the image. It appears to be the signature page of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement involving the SDNY (represented by Audrey Strauss, signed by Jessica Lonergan). The agreement stipulates that if the defendant completes supervision and fulfills terms, the Government will move to dismiss the indictment. The case number corresponds to United States v. Torgerson (involving the prison guards on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died).
DOJ-OGR-00022105.jpg
This document is the final page of a court order dated June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (related to the guards charged in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's death). Judge Analisa Torres denies defendant Thomas' motion to compel the government to disclose evidence regarding widespread falsification of count slips at the BOP, ruling that Thomas failed to meet the standard for a selective prosecution claim. The judge notes Thomas provided no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect based on race, sex, or ethnicity.
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
This is page 8 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (USA v. Noel and Thomas). The court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel the government to produce evidence held by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), ruling that the BOP is not part of the prosecution team for Brady disclosure purposes. The document also outlines Thomas's argument that the conduct he is charged with was rampant within the BOP and acquiesced to by leadership.
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in the case of United States v. Thomas (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). The Court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel disclosure of the Inspector General's report regarding Epstein's death because the report did not exist at the time. Furthermore, the Court rules that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is not considered part of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), as there is no evidence BOP officials participated in the criminal investigation leading to Thomas' indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00022098.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in the case against prison guards Thomas and Noel. The court denies Thomas' motion for additional discovery, noting that the Government has already produced significant evidence, including surveillance video dating back to July 5, 2019, count slips, round forms, and staffing rosters covering the period of Epstein's suicide. The text outlines the legal standards (Rule 16, Brady, Giglio) under which Thomas argued for further access to information.
DOJ-OGR-00022095.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court filing (Document 35) from April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Tova Noel and Michael Thomas). The Government argues against defendant Thomas's motion for discovery regarding a 'selective prosecution' claim. The text asserts that Thomas failed to provide evidence of discriminatory purpose or bad faith by the Government, rejecting his defense that similar misconduct is 'rampant' within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Footnote 8 clarifies that selective prosecution is an issue for the judge, not the jury, as it does not relate to factual innocence.
DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 35, filed 04/24/20) in the case against Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein case). The prosecution argues that Thomas is not entitled to draft OIG reports under Rule 16 or Brady obligations. Furthermore, the text argues Thomas has failed to meet the burden of proof required to demand discovery to support a 'selective prosecution' claim, specifically failing to prove discriminatory intent or effect regarding his charges relative to rampant conduct within the Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00022090.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a motion made by an individual named Thomas. The prosecution contends that a draft report and related work product from the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) concerning Jeffrey Epstein's incarceration are protected by the deliberative process privilege and should not be disclosed. The filing asserts that while underlying materials have been provided, Thomas's claim for additional information is speculative and unsupported.
DOJ-OGR-00022089.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated April 24, 2020, arguing against a motion by defendant Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein case) to disclose draft versions of an Inspector General's Report regarding the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The text argues that such drafts do not yet exist and, even if they did, would be protected by the 'deliberative process privilege.' The document cites numerous legal precedents to support the claim that pre-decisional government documents are shielded from discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00022088.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) motion for discovery. The government contends that searching for certain records from the BOP, CIA, and Vice President's office would be an undue burden and that a draft Inspector General report is not subject to disclosure because it is not material to the defense and is protected by deliberative process privilege. The government states the report is not yet complete and the prosecution team has no involvement in its creation.
DOJ-OGR-00022087.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 24, 2020, involving the prosecution of prison guards (specifically defendant Thomas) related to the events of August 9-10, 2019 (Jeffrey Epstein's suicide). The Government argues against Thomas's request for BOP records regarding staffing shortages and prior instances of falsified records, asserting that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team and therefore the Government is not obligated to search BOP files under discovery rules. The text cites legal precedents (U.S. v. Bryan, U.S. v. Volpe) to support the limitation of 'government' to only those agencies participating in the specific investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00022086.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a discovery request from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends that it is not required to produce records from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) because the BOP was not part of the prosecution team or involved in a 'joint investigation'. The document distinguishes the roles of the prosecution (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, DOJ-OIG) from the BOP, noting the Government obtained BOP records via subpoena and was not involved in the BOP's internal investigation into Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00022082.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends it is not required to produce documents from separate investigations conducted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or other federal agencies into the death of Jeffrey Epstein, because those agencies are not part of the prosecution team and the materials are not in the prosecution's possession.
DOJ-OGR-00022079.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 24, 2020, is a discussion from the prosecution arguing against the defense strategy of a defendant named Thomas. The prosecution contends that Thomas's plan to argue for acquittal based on being overworked and understaffed at the MCC, with rampant falsification of records within the BOP, is not a valid legal defense. The document cites case law (United States v. Carr) to support the argument that such excuses do not negate the elements of the crime and that allowing this defense would encourage jury nullification.
DOJ-OGR-00022077.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) request for certain records. The government contends that the records—related to BOP staffing, policies, and other employees—are not 'material' to preparing a legal defense under Rule 16. Instead, the government asserts Thomas seeks these records for the impermissible purpose of encouraging jury nullification by arguing that poor conditions at the BOP 'led' to his alleged criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00022073.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion filed by an individual named Thomas on April 9, 2020. Thomas is seeking to compel the Government to produce a wide range of documents related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death, including the Inspector General's report, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) records, and disciplinary files for MCC employees. The Government asserts that Thomas is not entitled to these materials and that his motion should be denied by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00022072.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing (Document 35) from April 24, 2020, in the case against prison guards Noel and Thomas (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). It details legal maneuvering regarding discovery, specifically focusing on requests for MCC video surveillance footage and reports from the Inspector General. The text notes that Thomas considered filing a motion to dismiss based on 'selective prosecution' but failed to do so by the deadline.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity