Miami Herald
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Emily Michot
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-28 | N/A | Publication of 'Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a b... | Miami Herald | View |
| 2018-11-01 | N/A | The Miami Herald published its investigation, "Perversion of Justice," detailing the Epstein plea... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023171.tif
This document, an excerpt from an analysis report (Chapter Two, Part Three), discusses the public and media scrutiny following the Miami Herald's November 2018 report on the handling of the Epstein investigation. It focuses on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), allegations of a 'sweetheart deal' by Acosta and the USAO due to improper influences, and OPR's investigation into these matters, concluding that Acosta reviewed and approved the NPA terms and is accountable for it. The report also mentions other individuals (Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña) involved in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00023321.tif
This document is a conclusion from an OPR report detailing the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by federal prosecutors. It outlines the Miami Herald's 2018 report, the subsequent OPR investigation into the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving R. Alexander Acosta, and the findings regarding victim rights violations. The report identifies five former USAO attorneys, including Acosta, as subjects of the investigation concerning their involvement in the NPA and victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023207.tif
This document details an OPR investigation finding no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a cooperating witness or 'intelligence asset' in federal matters. It concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving a federal investigation against Epstein through a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), which allowed Epstein to manipulate his sentence conditions and lacked sufficient federal oversight. The document also references media reports and internal discussions concerning rumors of Epstein's cooperation.
DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 17, 2021, details a court's reasoning for excluding certain evidence from a trial involving Ms. Maxwell. The court argues that evidence proposed by the defense concerning the government's motives for the investigation—including a Miami Herald article and statements from Attorney General William Barr—would confuse and delay the trial, with its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value. The document suggests the defense should focus on the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial instead.
DOJ-OGR-00001121.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell has been subjected to intense media harassment and threats following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death. It includes a graph showing a spike in media mentions between 2015 and 2020, specifically highlighting the Miami Herald 'Perversion of Justice' series, Epstein's arrest/death, and a bounty offered by The Sun. The text details abusive social media messages received by Maxwell, citing terms like 'pedophile' and 'pimp,' while noting she was not charged in the original Epstein indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00000800.jpg
This legal document outlines the U.S. Government's argument that Jeffrey Epstein attempted to influence potential witnesses after a critical Miami Herald report was published in late 2018. The government alleges Epstein paid a total of $350,000 to two 'potential co-conspirators,' identified as Individual I and Individual II, for whom he had previously secured protection in his 2007 Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement. Individual II is specifically described as an employee who facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00000788.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the prosecution's (Government's) argument against granting bail to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The Government cites Epstein's vast wealth ($559M), a history of witness obstruction, and recent suspicious wire transfers totaling $350,000 to a potential co-conspirator as evidence that his proposed release conditions are 'woefully inadequate' and that he poses a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00000575.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in a case involving Mr. Epstein. An unidentified speaker, likely the prosecutor, argues against the credibility of the defense's claims, particularly the idea that Epstein has disciplined himself. The speaker contends that this claim is an admission of his "appetite for children" and that the court should not risk community safety based on it, also referencing articles by the Miami Herald about Epstein's past misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000557.jpg
This document is page 47 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (1:19-cr-00490). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg is arguing against the government's claim that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 made by the defendant constituted witness tampering or obstruction of justice. Weinberg contends these were acts of generosity to employees or friends and argues that, under the Aguilar Supreme Court precedent, these actions do not rise to federal obstruction because there was no pending judicial proceeding at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00000519.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning a bail proceeding for Mr. Epstein. The speaker discusses the government's arguments for detention, citing a recent search of Epstein's home on the Upper East Side and his arrest. The key point is the government's allegation of witness tampering, supported by evidence of two large payments ($250,000 and $100,000) made to Epstein's associates shortly after a Miami Herald story was published about the case and the role of former U.S. Attorney Mr. Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00000488.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on July 18, 2019, alleges that Jeffrey Epstein attempted to tamper with witnesses. The Government contends that shortly after the Miami Herald published an exposé on his 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein paid $100,000 and $250,000 respectively to 'Individual I' and 'Individual II', both described as potential co-conspirators who allegedly facilitated his crimes. The payments are presented as evidence of an attempt to influence potential witnesses in his ongoing case.
DOJ-OGR-00000440.jpg
This is a letter dated July 16, 2019, from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Judge Richard M. Berman in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution details two suspicious wire transfers made by Epstein in late 2018, totaling $350,000, to two redacted individuals shortly after the Miami Herald began publishing an exposé on him. One of the recipients is described as a 'potential co-conspirator' from Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement, raising concerns of witness tampering.
DOJ-OGR-00000339.jpg
This document is a legal filing arguing that Jeffrey Epstein poses a danger of obstructing justice. It cites past incidents of intimidation, including a private investigator driving a victim's parent off the road and threats that those who hurt Epstein 'will be dealt with.' It further highlights suspicious financial activity in late 2018, specifically wire transfers totaling $350,000 to possible co-conspirators immediately following the publication of investigative articles by the Miami Herald.
DOJ-OGR-00020710.jpg
This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426), covering entries from January 14, 2022, to January 26, 2022. Key events include Judge Nathan scheduling Maxwell's sentencing for June 28, 2022, and granting an exclusion under the Speedy Trial Act until April 2022 to allow for post-trial motions. The docket also records various letters from media organizations (Miami Herald, ABC, NBC, NY Times) regarding the unsealing of documents related to Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002539.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the timeline of events following the Miami Herald's 2018 reporting and Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death. It covers the dismissal of the indictment against Epstein due to his suicide, the ongoing CVRA litigation by victims (specifically Jane Doe 1) in the 11th Circuit regarding the government's failure to confer with victims before the NPA, and the initiation of the OPR investigation requested by Senator Ben Sasse.
DOJ-OGR-00002537.jpg
This document serves as a historical summary of legal proceedings regarding Jeffrey Epstein between 2008 and 2018. It details his controversial work release program via the 'Florida Science Foundation,' the eventual unsealing of his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the subsequent civil litigation under the CVRA. It also covers Alexander Acosta's 2017 confirmation as Labor Secretary and the 2018 Miami Herald investigation exposing the lenient plea deal.
DOJ-OGR-00002421.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It includes a transcript excerpt where Maxwell denies giving massages to anyone, specifically including Epstein and '[Minor Victim-2],' and discusses her knowledge of Epstein's sexual activities involving a 'blond and brunette.' The document also references a ruling by Judge Preska in the civil case regarding the unsealing of Maxwell's July 2016 deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00001997.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, describes a dramatic increase in negative media attention and online harassment directed at Ghislaine Maxwell following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in July 2019. A graph illustrates the spike in media mentions, highlighting key events like Epstein's arrest, his death, and a £10,000 bounty offered by The Sun tabloid for information on Maxwell. The text argues that despite not being charged or mentioned in Epstein's indictment at the time, Maxwell faced a deluge of hatred and threats on social media.
DOJ-OGR-00021485.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report concerning the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a 2018 Miami Herald article, the OPR investigated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The report identifies five former federal prosecutors, including former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, as subjects of the investigation for their roles in negotiating and executing the controversial deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021421.jpg
This legal document details the FBI's efforts in January 2008 to re-establish contact with victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case by sending standardized notification letters. FBI agent Villafaña expressed concern to her supervisors about losing contact with victims and proposed proactive measures, while also noting that Epstein's defense attorneys were aggressively deposing victims in a related state case. The document highlights the procedural challenges of maintaining victim communication during a complex federal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021353.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the origins of the two-year plea deal. It details an allegation by prosecutor Villafaña that former First Assistant Jeff Sloman told her that prosecutor Matt Menchel pushed for the two-year deal as a personal favor ('do her a solid') to Epstein's defense attorney, Lilly Ann Sanchez. The report notes that OPR found no merit to this allegation, with Sloman testifying he did not recall making the remark seriously and did not believe Menchel would do such a thing.
DOJ-OGR-00021333.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the public scrutiny following the 2018 Miami Herald report and OPR's investigation into whether the 'sweetheart deal' was motivated by improper influence. The text confirms that Alexander Acosta reviewed, revised, and approved the NPA, accepting full responsibility for it during his OPR interview.
DOJ-OGR-00021290.jpg
This document describes the conflicting accounts surrounding a breakfast meeting between prosecutor Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Lefkowitz. A letter from Lefkowitz claims Acosta promised the USAO would not interfere with Epstein's state-level plea deal, a claim Acosta's office refuted in an unsent draft letter calling it "inaccurate." The text also details Acosta's later, differing recollections of the meeting and contrasts them with media reports that a secret deal was struck at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00021181.jpg
This legal document outlines the events following Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, including the dismissal of his federal indictment in New York and the progression of a Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit in Florida. It details a specific victim's appeal and the government's arguments. The document also describes the initiation of an investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into potential prosecutorial misconduct, prompted by a Miami Herald report and a formal request from Senator Ben Sasse.
DOJ-OGR-00019408.jpg
This page from a legal filing, dated September 24, 2020, discusses procedural history regarding the unsealing of documents in the Brown v. Maxwell case. It references specific denied motions by Alan Dershowitz and Michael Cernovich to modify a protective order, as well as a denied request by the Miami Herald to unseal the docket. The top half of the page is heavily redacted.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity