DOJ
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justice Department launched probe into prosecutor misconduct | Washington D.C. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00032492.jpg
This document contains four phone message slips addressed to 'Mr. J.E.' (Jeffrey Epstein) from December 7 and 8, 2004. Callers include Natalie, Lesley Wexner, Harry Beller (NYC Office), and Cheri (Palm Beach area code). Notable content includes a request from Wexner for a return call and a message from Cheri identifying 'Kary Connolly' as someone who 'was a steward'.
DOJ-OGR-00032483.jpg
A page from a spiral-bound phone message book containing three messages for 'Mr. J.E.' (Jeffrey Epstein) dated November 9 and 10, 2004. Callers include Manuela and Leslie (both noted as being of the 'NY Office') and Cacha. The messages indicate the callers would call back or simply wanted to register that they had called.
DOJ-OGR-00032443.jpg
This document contains a photocopy of four phone message slips addressed to 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein). Two messages are dated February 8, 2003 (from Amanda and Tony), and two are dated August 2, 2003 (from Banu and Crystal). The slips contain phone numbers (212, 310, and 646 area codes) and request return calls. The document includes Department of Justice Public Records Request metadata at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00032433.jpg
This document contains a scanned page of four 'Important Message' slips, three of which are filled out. The slips record phone messages for 'Miss Roginc', 'Miss Epstein', and 'JE' (Jeffrey Epstein). Notable callers include Mary Sarkis (calling from a Palm Beach area code) and Dejana, both inquiring about scheduling times to 'come by' or have another female 'come by'.
DOJ-OGR-00032422.jpg
A handwritten note on 'Jeffrey E. Epstein' personal stationery. The note lists a circled time '6:30 w/u' (likely a wake-up call request), followed by the instructions 'make pic' (handwriting ambiguous, possibly 'take pic') and 'Fire Dept.'.
DOJ-OGR-00032419.jpg
A page from a spiral-bound phone message book containing four message slips dated January 25, 2005. Messages for Jeffrey Epstein include an inquiry about a 'Texico' investment from Georgia Son, a request to call Ghislaine Maxwell back, and a redacted caller asking about 'working today'. One slip is crossed out, and handwritten text across the page instructs to send the logs back to Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00032376.jpg
This document appears to be a page from an address book or contact list belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell. It contains a handwritten entry for 'Richard Snyder' (partially obscured) listing a home phone number with a 212 area code and a cell number with a 917 area code, both associated with New York City.
DOJ-OGR-00032375.jpg
This document is a single page, likely a note or file label, bearing the typed name 'Ghislaine Maxwell'. A handwritten inscription at the top reads 'Zeff x 8 Tues -', possibly indicating a meeting or appointment involving a person named Zeff on a Tuesday. The document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00032375' suggests it is from a Department of Justice file.
DOJ-OGR-00032374.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ public records release (Request No. 17-295) containing a handwritten note signed by 'Joan'. The note lists items such as 'For P.R.', 'Slifer', 'Police', 'Sherri', and what appears to be 'Closet - Space'. The name Ghislaine Maxwell is typed at the bottom, associating the note with her files.
DOJ-OGR-00004876.jpg
This document is Page 64 of 80 from an exhibit filed on July 2, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The content itself is an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing District Attorney Bruce Castor's decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. The text analyzes the specific wording of a press release issued by Castor, arguing that his statement about 'reconsidering this decision' referred to his decision not to speak publicly, rather than his decision not to prosecute. This document was likely submitted in the Maxwell case to argue legal precedents regarding non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004871.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal document filed on July 2, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text appears to be from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in *Commonwealth v. Cosby* (indicated by docket [J-100-2020]), which was used by Maxwell's defense to argue about the enforceability of non-prosecution agreements. The text discusses the scope of prosecutorial discretion versus a defendant's due process rights and fundamental fairness, specifically when a defendant relies on a prosecutor's actions to their detriment.
DOJ-OGR-00004870.jpg
This document is page 58 of 80 from a legal filing (likely a brief or opinion) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text analyzes legal precedents, specifically *Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland*, to argue that prosecutors must be held to their promises and assurances to defendants, particularly when a defendant relies on those promises to their detriment. The page discusses the concepts of specific performance, due process, and plea agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
This document is page 55 of 80 from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion citing the precedent of *Commonwealth v. Zuber*, discussing the legal obligation of prosecutors to honor promises made during plea bargaining. This is likely included in a defense motion arguing for the enforcement of a non-prosecution agreement (likely the Epstein NPA) based on the principle of 'benefit of the bargain.'
DOJ-OGR-00004864.jpg
This document is page 52 of 80 from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. The text appears to be an excerpt from a judicial opinion (likely the PA Supreme Court case J-100-2020 regarding Commonwealth v. Cosby) discussing whether former D.A. Bruce Castor's promise not to prosecute Bill Cosby constituted a binding immunity agreement. The court concludes that Castor's actions were a unilateral exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a formal contract or quid pro quo exchange. This legal precedent regarding Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) was likely cited in the Maxwell case to argue the validity or scope of the Epstein NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00004858.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) referencing the legal precedent of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*. It discusses the validity of non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), specifically analyzing why Cosby's claim of immunity based on a District Attorney's promise was rejected by the Superior Court. It also cites *Commonwealth v. Stipetich* to argue that police promises cannot bind a District Attorney's office to non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004853.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed July 2, 2021. It contains a legal argument citing *Commonwealth v. Tyson* and the Bill Cosby case to discuss the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence ('prior bad acts') to establish a common plan or scheme. The text details the legal reasoning for admitting evidence of a prior rape conviction in the *Tyson* case despite a twelve-year gap, using this as precedent to discuss Constand's allegations against Cosby.
DOJ-OGR-00004851.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) citing the legal precedent of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*. The text details the court's reasoning for admitting 'prior bad acts' evidence (Rule 404(b)) and deposition testimony regarding Quaaludes in the Bill Cosby trial to prove intent and motive. It concludes with a summary of Cosby's conviction for aggravated indecent assault and his designation as a 'sexually violent predator' under SORNA.
DOJ-OGR-00004850.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. It discusses legal arguments regarding the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances,' heavily citing Pennsylvania case law involving Bill Cosby (Commonwealth v. Cosby) and Andrea Constand. The text argues that the similarity of crimes can outweigh the remoteness in time between incidents.
DOJ-OGR-00004849.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on July 2, 2021. It appears to be quoting a legal opinion regarding the Bill Cosby case (specifically referencing case J-100-2020 and Commonwealth v. Hicks), discussing the admissibility of 'prior bad acts' evidence and the 'doctrine of chances' to prove lack of mistake or accident in sexual assault cases. The text analyzes Cosby's modus operandi involving intoxicants and mentions Andrea Constand and 19 other witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00004844.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discussing the procedural history of the Bill Cosby sexual assault case. It details the mistrial in 2017, the subsequent motion to include 'prior bad acts' witnesses, and specifically introduces the testimony of Janice Baker-Kinney regarding an incident in Reno, Nevada in 1982. This document was likely submitted in the Maxwell case as legal precedent regarding the admission of testimony from prior accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00004826.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically citing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion ([J-100-2020]) regarding Bill Cosby. It details the history of D.A. Bruce Castor's verbal non-prosecution decision in 2005, noting that because Cosby believed he had immunity, he did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during civil depositions. This legal precedent regarding non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) was likely used by the defense or prosecution in the Maxwell/Epstein case to argue the validity or scope of Epstein's own non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004817.jpg
This document is Page 5 of 80 from a court filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from a legal opinion or summary of facts regarding the case of Commonwealth v. Cosby (referencing Bill Cosby and Andrea Constand). It details a January 2004 incident where Cosby allegedly drugged Constand with three blue pills and wine at his Cheltenham residence.
DOJ-OGR-00004804.jpg
This document is page 20 of 21 of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the Government did not violate her due process rights when it obtained evidence from her earlier civil case via a modification to a protective order signed by Judge McMahon. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments based on the 'Martindell' and 'Franks' legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
This court document (page 16 of a filing from June 2021) denies Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the Government deliberately misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon regarding communications with the Boies Schiller firm (BSF). The court rules that the prosecutor's failure to mention a 2016 email/meeting with Giuffre's attorneys during an April 2019 hearing was likely because the question was understood to refer only to the *current* investigation, not all historical contacts. The text references the standard set by *Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.* regarding coordination between civil litigants and criminal prosecutors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity