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-00021238.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta justifies the decision not to pursue a more aggressive federal prosecution by citing the Petite policy, which presumes deference to state prosecutions, and arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice." He also expresses concerns that a federal trial would have set unfavorable legal precedent regarding solicitation versus trafficking and would have been traumatic for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00021231.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report detailing internal DOJ deliberations in May 2007 regarding the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights a conflict between prosecutors Lourie (who favored meeting with defense) and Villafaña (who strongly opposed it, arguing the case warranted prison time rather than probation negotiations). The text includes details of emails and a draft memo where Villafaña expresses concern that meeting with Epstein's lawyers, including Lefcourt and Dershowitz, would reveal too much prosecution strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00021230.jpg
This legal document details internal disagreements within a U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the prosecution of a case, likely against Epstein. Prosecutor Villafaña pushed for a rapid indictment, citing concerns about ongoing crimes, but her superiors, including Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta, believed she was moving too fast and that more review was necessary. The conflict led to multiple communications seeking direction and was later reviewed by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).
DOJ-OGR-00021229.jpg
This document outlines internal DOJ deliberations from May 2007 regarding the strategy for charging Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutor Lourie advocated for a pre-indictment plea to maintain control over the case and avoid judicial scrutiny of dismissed counts, noting that sentencing guidelines suggested a 20-year range. Meanwhile, prosecutor Villafaña urged immediate action when Epstein traveled to New Jersey, but was blocked by Menchel and U.S. Attorney Acosta, who wanted more time to review the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021200.jpg
This document is a placeholder page labeled 'SA-26' and numbered 'xxiv' from a court filing associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case) and Case 22-1426. The page is marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]' and contains a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021200).
DOJ-OGR-00021195.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents (page xix) from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It outlines findings that prosecutors (Acosta, Villafaña, Lourie) did not act on improper influence or provide improper benefits based on relationships with defense counsel. However, section V explicitly states that Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the investigation through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and a state plea deal based on flawed policy applications.
DOJ-OGR-00021167.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing dated April 26, 2023, regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The government attorney outlines the complexity of Maxwell's appeal—which raises issues including Epstein's nonprosecution agreement and juror misconduct—and requests a 30-day extension and a word count allowance (over 20,000 words) to adequately respond, citing a scheduling conflict with another trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021166.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) outlining the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case post-trial. It details her conviction dates, sentencing by Judge Nathan (including a $750,000 fine and concurrent prison terms), and the timeline of her appeal process, including various motions for extensions and oversized briefs filed between July 2022 and February 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00021154.jpg
This document is page 2 of a criminal judgment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2022. It lists additional counts of conviction, specifically Count 4 (Transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, ending in 1997) and Count 6 (Sex trafficking of a minor, ending in 2004). The document is marked as part of an appellate record from February 2023.
DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
This document is a page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues 'Procedural Errors' regarding the sentencing of a defendant (identified by the sentencing date of June 28, 2022, as likely Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically claiming the District Court miscalculated sentencing guidelines and adhered to a pre-determined 240-month sentence despite errors in the calculation range. It references the Presentence Report (PSR) and the 'SH' (Sentencing Hearing).
DOJ-OGR-00021133.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erred regarding 'Juror 50,' claiming the juror was biased and concealed information during voir dire to act as an 'unsworn expert' on traumatic memory. It cites Rule 606(b) exceptions and references a footnote contrasting expert testimony by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (stating memory is constructed) with Juror 50's statements to The Independent (Jan 4, 2022) that abuse memories are 'replayed like a video.'
DOJ-OGR-00021112.jpg
This document is page 65 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. The text presents a legal argument regarding statutory interpretation, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or a 'case-specific approach' should apply to 8 U.S.C. § 3283. The brief argues that the District Court erred by using a case-specific approach, citing conflicts with Supreme Court precedents such as *Nijhawan v. Holder*, *James v. U.S.*, and *Kawashima*.
DOJ-OGR-00019609.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020 (Document 82 in Case 20-3061). It outlines arguments asserting that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order. The document references Judge Nathan and details the structure of the argument spanning 30 pages.
DOJ-OGR-00019606.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 15 of 15, internal page 14) of a legal response filed on September 28, 2020, in Case 20-3061. Attorneys Adam Mueller and Ty Gee of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. submit the filing on behalf of Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. The document includes a Certificate of Compliance regarding word count and a Certificate of Service confirming the filing of 'Ms. Maxwell’s Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal'.
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
DOJ-OGR-00019597.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing dated September 28, 2020, concerning Case 20-3061. It presents a legal argument distinguishing the current appeal from *Flanagan v. United States*, asserting that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding Judge Nathan's order is comparable to a bail reduction motion because the harm (unsealing deposition materials) would be irreversible ("the cat is irretrievably out of the bag") if not addressed immediately. The text argues that Maxwell must be allowed to share information from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska to prevent the unsealing order from going into effect without reconsideration.
DOJ-OGR-00019582.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service filed on September 4, 2020 (referencing a September 3 action), in case 1:20-cv-00330-AJN. Nicole Simmons certifies that she filed a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of Court by mail and served all parties of record by email. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019582).
DOJ-OGR-00019581.jpg
This document is a signature page from a legal filing submitted by attorneys Laura A. Menninger and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca of the firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The page contains two overlapping header stamps indicating it relates to Case 1:20-cv-00330-AJN (filed Sep 4, 2020) and Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP (filed Oct 23, 2020). It includes contact information for the attorneys and a DOJ Bates stamp number App.122 / DOJ-OGR-00019581.
DOJ-OGR-00019578.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 24, 2020. The text argues that Protective Orders may be modified as circumstances change and refutes the Government's suggestion that Ms. Maxwell waived her right to seek modification. It cites various legal precedents (Smith Kline Beecham Corp., United States v. Gurney, etc.) to support the court's power to modify orders and unseal records.
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues against the U.S. Government's position, refuting the claim that materials Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal are 'Confidential' or would compromise a 'secret' investigation. The filing cites legal precedent and states that the subpoena recipient is already aware of the information in question.
DOJ-OGR-00019572.jpg
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It argues for the continued sealing of certain court documents, with redactions, to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial from pretrial publicity. The filing references the government's own public statements about its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's associates as evidence of the high-profile nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019566.jpg
A heavily redacted legal filing from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. The document discusses procedural history, including government applications in 2019, Maxwell's arrest in July 2020, and allegations in the superseding indictment regarding perjury and assisting Jeffrey Epstein. A footnote details the timeline of discovery materials received by the defense in early August 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019565.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Appendix 106) addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. While largely redacted, the visible text discusses 'The Material' and notes that the government contacted an unknown party prior to February 2019 and served a subpoena, but explicitly states that Ms. Maxwell was not served with it.
DOJ-OGR-00019564.jpg
Page 2 of a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. The document discusses the handling of materials marked 'Confidential' by the government, with the defense (Maxwell) arguing that these are 'judicial documents' with a presumptive right of public access, citing Brown v. Maxwell. Large portions of the factual history and footnotes are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019561.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 2, 2020, details a procedural history where the U.S. Government, in February 2019, successfully modified a civil protective order in one court (Court-1) to obtain materials for a criminal grand jury investigation. The defendant in the criminal case later learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the defendant to provide information under seal to the relevant courts (Court-1 and Court-2) so they can make their own determinations about the matter.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity