Office of Professional Responsibility
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-01-01 | Investigation | The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated allegations of... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023135.tif
This document excerpt details concerns raised by Acosta regarding the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case, specifically about challenges to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the defense team's tactics. Acosta's letter expresses frustration over the lack of finality and issues being appealed to Department Headquarters, while also setting a deadline of December 7, 2007, for a decision on the Agreement. It also describes Acosta's discussions with OPR and a subsequent response to Acosta from Starr and Lefkowitz.
DOJ-OGR-00000013.jpg
This legal document argues that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not bound by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). It cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to assert that the authority of a U.S. Attorney is limited to their specific district, a point reinforced by an Assistant Attorney General who stated she played no role in the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021859.jpg
This document excerpt discusses the jurisdictional scope of a U.S. Attorney's office, questioning whether the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein by the USAO-SDFL could bind other districts like the USAO-SDNY. It references the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that a U.S. Attorney's authority is limited to their specific district. The document also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any role in reviewing or approving Epstein's NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00005212.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to receive a fair trial has been compromised by extensive negative publicity. The publicity stems from Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 case, the subsequent investigation by the Department of Justice's OPR, and the resignation of Alex Acosta. The document further contends that the trial's location in New York, a venue for other high-profile sex abuse cases involving figures like Andrew Cuomo, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly, contributes to a biased environment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031430.jpg
This document is a printout of a news article (likely from the Miami Herald) discussing legal maneuvers to reopen the criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and throw out his 2008 plea agreement. It covers the involvement of victims' attorneys requesting a review by a new jurisdiction (Pak's office), a DOJ probe into Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta's conduct during the original case, and an upcoming hearing in New York regarding the unsealing of documents requested by the Miami Herald. The document is stamped with a House Oversight Committee Bates number.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity