Marshal Service
OrganizationRelationship Network
Interview Transcript - Maxwell 2025.07.24 (Redacted).pdf
This document is a transcript of an interview, or 'proffer,' of Ghislaine Maxwell conducted by the United States Department of Justice on July 24, 2025. The interview involves legal counsel for Maxwell and various US government representatives, primarily focusing on the terms and conditions of a proffer agreement, emphasizing that it is not a cooperation agreement and outlines the immunity and exceptions related to false statements.
EFTA00037809.pdf
This document is an email chain between US Marshal Service officials dated shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's death in August 2019. It discusses intelligence gathering, specifically identifying locations of potential financial records (a lifeguard stand named 'Bluebeach' and an office at American Yacht Harbor) and coordinating interviews with witnesses, including Air Traffic Controllers who observed Epstein transporting underage girls. The correspondence also reveals a specific international trip Epstein took to Austria on March 22, 2019, with three females, noting that witnesses had previously been terrified to speak due to a $1 million NDA.
EFTA00034589.pdf
This document appears to be a signature page or cover note from a Deputy United States Marshal within the Southern District of New York. The text is minimal, simply stating 'See attached' followed by the official's title and redacted identification blocks. It is marked Confidential and bears Bates numbers SDNY_00011578 and EFTA00034589.
EFTA00031263.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law filed by the United States Government opposing Defendant Michael Thomas's motion to compel discovery in the criminal case regarding the falsification of records connected to the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The Government argues that it has already met its discovery obligations under Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio, and that the additional materials Thomas seeks—including OIG drafts, BOP records, and evidence of selective prosecution—are either not in the prosecution team's possession, are privileged, or are irrelevant to a valid legal defense, serving instead only to support an improper jury nullification strategy.
EFTA00027307.pdf
The United States Government filed this Memorandum of Law in opposition to defendant Michael Thomas's motion to compel additional discovery in the case regarding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The government argues that it has already provided substantial discovery (video surveillance, logs, witness statements) and that Thomas's requests for Inspector General reports and internal BOP disciplinary records of other employees are irrelevant, privileged, or intended for an improper 'jury nullification' defense regarding staffing shortages. The government asserts that Thomas has failed to provide evidence for a selective prosecution claim.
EFTA00027095.pdf
This document is an email chain dated August 12, 2019, circulating a high-importance letter from Judge Richard M. Berman regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case (19 cr 490). The correspondence involves the United States Marshal Service for the Southern District of New York, though specific names of the senders and recipients are redacted.
EFTA00018159.pdf
This document contains an email chain between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Virgin Islands and SDNY) and the U.S. Marshal Service regarding an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein for violating International Megan's Law (IML). The USMS Senior Inspector reports that Epstein signed a duty to report travel form on March 15, 2019, but subsequently failed to report two international trips: one to Vienna, Austria on March 22, 2019 (accompanied by three female passengers), and one to Morocco on April 25, 2019. The officials express concern that leaking this information could hamper the ongoing investigation given Epstein's resources.
DOJ-OGR-00001072.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770) dated April 1, 2021. A defense attorney is arguing for the release of their client (inferred to be Ghislaine Maxwell) on the grounds that reviewing voluminous electronic discovery for 'conduct that's alleged to be 25 years old' is impossible while the client is in custody during the pandemic. The attorney notes the client is in 'administrative seg.' (segregation) because authorities are 'afraid of what happened with Mr. Epstein' (referencing his death in custody).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity