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-00000539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The text captures a dialogue between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg. The Court lists various crimes involving minors that carry a presumption of remand. Mr. Weinberg acknowledges the gravity of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein but argues that his case does not fit the typical profile ('heartland') of commercial sex trafficking statutes (1591) which usually involve servitude, enslavement, and pimps.
DOJ-OGR-00000537.jpg
Page 27 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490 (USA v. Epstein) filed on July 24, 2019. Defense counsel argues for the defendant's release, citing his compliance with past registration (since 2010), jail time, and probation, while asserting that the Southern District of New York was not 'detached' from the Florida non-prosecution agreement. The Judge (The Court) responds by discussing the 'rebuttable presumption' for detention in cases involving children or young people.
DOJ-OGR-00000527.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, during a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Rossmiller argues against bail, citing Epstein's extensive foreign connections and the discovery of an expired 1980s passport issued by a foreign country with a residence listed as Saudi Arabia. The passport contained Epstein's photo but a different name, which the prosecution uses to argue flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000505.jpg
This document is an email thread from September 13, 2007, between Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Marie Villafana and attorney Jay Lefkowitz. They arrange a phone call for the following morning to discuss potential misdemeanor charges under specific U.S. legal codes related to an incident on an airplane. The discussion indicates they are negotiating a potential plea agreement, with Villafana seeking to confirm the factual basis for the plea.
DOJ-OGR-00000482.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against granting bail to Jeffrey Epstein. It details testimony from alleged victim Courtney Wild, who described being abused by Epstein from age 14 and expressed fear for other girls' safety. The filing counters the defense's argument that Epstein is disciplined, asserting instead that his alleged sexual conduct is an uncontrollable, addictive behavior that poses a continued threat to young girls.
DOJ-OGR-00000479.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 8 of 33 from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 18, 2019. It outlines the legal standards for a court to order a defendant's detention based on two separate grounds: dangerousness to the community and risk of flight. The text cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Bail Reform Act to support its arguments regarding evidence standards and the factors a court must consider.
DOJ-OGR-00000464.jpg
This document is an email from Jeffrey Epstein dated December 18, 2013, sent to Deborah Anaya and Darren Indyke. The subject line is 'sex regi' (likely referring to sex offender registration), and the body text informs the recipients that Epstein will be in New Mexico from the 20th to the 28th out of an 'abundance of caution.' The document was filed as an exhibit in a 2019 court case.
DOJ-OGR-00000455.jpg
This document is page 2 of 2 of a court filing (Document 25) submitted on July 17, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein). It lists the contact information, including addresses, phone numbers, and emails, for defense attorneys Martin G. Weinberg and Marc Allan Fernich.
DOJ-OGR-00000452.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a defense filing dated July 16, 2019, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman. It provides an explanation for a controversial passport carried by Epstein in the 1980s, claiming it was for protection against hijackers in the Middle East. The text further argues for Epstein's release on bail, asserting that despite intense media scrutiny (specifically from The Miami Herald) and public pressure since November 2018, Epstein traveled extensively yet always returned to the U.S., proving he is not a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000451.jpg
This document is page 7 of a defense letter to Judge Berman dated July 16, 2019. It addresses two specific points: 1) Refuting Mr. Boies' speculation that payments in late 2018 were to cooperating witnesses, clarifying instead that they were to employees/friends who invoked the Fifth Amendment; and 2) Dismissing the government's concern over an Austrian passport, noting it expired 32 years ago and was never used. The document emphasizes Epstein's religious background in the context of acquiring said passport.
DOJ-OGR-00000439.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 9 of 9) of a legal filing submitted on July 16, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. Attorneys Marc Fernich, Martin Weintraub, and Reid Weingarten address Judge Richard M. Berman, thanking the court and referencing an upcoming appearance scheduled for 'Thursday' (likely July 18, 2019). The document includes a standard electronic signature block and an ECF copy notation.
DOJ-OGR-00000427.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 16, 2019, regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten requests an adjournment of a detention hearing until Thursday, which the Court grants. Prosecutor Mr. Rossmiller accepts the delay but provides a rebuttal argument, asserting that federal law charges trafficking rather than 'child prostitution' because children cannot consent to sex, and noting that force is not required for underage victims.
DOJ-OGR-00000424.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weingarten requests an adjournment of the detention hearing to the end of the week to prepare a written bail package, noting they had just met the client that day. The government attorney, Mr. Rossmiller, does not object, provided the defendant consents to detention in the interim under statute 3142(f).
DOJ-OGR-00000376.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. Attorneys Musumeci and Gaffney explain to the Court the specifics of Jeffrey Epstein's previous Florida plea deal, clarifying that while the indictment was not registrable, he pleaded guilty to a second offense 'by information'—specifically 'procuring a person under 18 for prostitution'—which requires registration.
DOJ-OGR-00000375.jpg
This document is page 9 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. The defense argues that the original Florida prosecutor, Lanna Belohlavek, stated there were 'no real victims' and that the conduct was 'commercial' and voluntary, lacking force. Ms. Musumeci addresses the court regarding the Florida investigation's conclusion that the offense was non-registrable at the time, though the Judge counters that it is registrable in the current jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00000372.jpg
This document is page 6 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing filed on July 15, 2019. The discussion involves attorneys Ms. Gaffney and Ms. Musumeci addressing the Court regarding a board recommendation and access to prosecutor files. Ms. Musumeci clarifies for the record that Jeffrey Epstein is not a resident of New York, but rather maintains a vacation home there, with his primary residence being in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
DOJ-OGR-00000321.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing dated July 11, 2019, in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). In this motion, Epstein, through his attorneys Reid Weingarten, Martin G. Weinberg, and Marc Allan Fernich, requests permission from the court to file his supplemental financial disclosure under seal. The document lists the contact information for the three defense attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing by the United States government. It requests that the court dismiss the petitioners' claims and proceedings due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The argument relies on legal precedent from the 11th Circuit, specifically concerning the doctrine of ripeness, which dictates that a court cannot issue advisory opinions or decide cases that are not ready for judicial review.
DOJ-OGR-00000310.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) entered on July 9, 2019. The government argues that the Petitioners (victims) lack standing to void Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because the government is contractually bound to it, and a favorable ruling would not redress their injury. However, the document notably admits that a federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein remains a 'legally viable possibility' regardless of the NPA's status.
DOJ-OGR-00000288.jpg
This document is the concluding section of a legal filing on behalf of Mr. Epstein, arguing for his pretrial release. The argument centers on the Sixth Amendment, stating that pretrial detention would materially impair his constitutional right to participate in his own defense, especially given the case involves voluminous discovery and events from over 14 years ago. The document concludes by asserting that Mr. Epstein is not a flight risk or a threat to the community and requests that the court grant his release.
DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg
This document is the final page (page 26) of an appellate court decision dated September 17, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court lists five key holdings, rejecting Maxwell's arguments regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, the statute of limitations, a motion for a new trial, jury instructions, and sentencing reasonableness. The document concludes by explicitly affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00000022.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' regarding the indictment, specifically analyzing 'Jane's testimony' and a 'jury note' related to Count Four. The appellate court agrees with the District Court's handling of the jury instructions and determines that the core of criminality was properly maintained.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity