state court
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00014075.pdf
Email exchange between Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black and an Assistant U.S. Attorney regarding the confidentiality of the September 24, 2007 (Non-Prosecution) agreement. Black thanks the AUSA for agreeing to oppose the disclosure of this agreement in civil cases, fearing it would be publicized to attract more plaintiffs. The AUSA requests a copy of the sealed state court filing from co-counsel Jack Goldberger to ensure consistency in documents.
DOJ-OGR-00000418.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 16, 2019, where a lawyer is speaking on behalf of their client, Mr. Epstein. The lawyer describes a past comprehensive legal agreement that included a plea, victim compensation, and a non-prosecution agreement from the federal government. The lawyer argues that since 2008, Mr. Epstein has led a law-abiding life under constant monitoring and that the current court case arises from litigation under the Crime Victims Rights Act.
DOJ-OGR-00018782.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Carolyn regarding a complaint filed on her behalf by attorney Mr. Willits in 2008 against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully objects to the admission of defense exhibit C4 on the grounds that it is 'not inconsistent,' leading the defense to request a sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00018780.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a previous legal complaint filed on Carolyn's behalf by an attorney named Mr. Willits in state court; specifically, Pagliuca establishes that this 91-page, 209-paragraph complaint did not contain a single mention of Ms. Maxwell's name.
DOJ-OGR-00021476.jpg
This document details how prosecutor Villafaña and other federal agents handled communications with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Fearing that knowledge of potential monetary damages could compromise witness credibility, Villafaña deliberately withheld specific details about the NPA from victims during interviews in 2007 and 2008. The text contrasts the official explanation given to victims with the reality of the agreement, as later attested to by victim Courtney Wild.
DOJ-OGR-00021435.jpg
This document contains a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the USAO (specifically Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña). It details the prosecutors' justifications for not notifying victims about the non-prosecution agreement and plea deal, citing a belief that the state would handle notification and a fear that the restitution payments ($150,000) would be used by Epstein's defense to impeach victim witnesses. The text highlights a lack of coordination between federal and state prosecutors regarding victim lists and the specific terms of the plea hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ report (likely OGR) detailing the period between January and June 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It describes the legal tug-of-war between Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) and the USAO (Acosta) regarding victim notification under the CVRA, with the defense arguing federal notification was inappropriate. It also details internal DOJ reviews of the case evidence by senior officials (Senior, Oosterbaan, Mandelker, Fisher) which delayed the plea deal, while prosecutor Villafaña and the FBI continued to investigate potential federal charges in anticipation of an NPA breach.
DOJ-OGR-00021414.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the prosecution (represented by Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team (Starr and Lefkowitz) regarding the government's obligation to notify victims under the VRRA. The prosecution argues for the necessity of informing victims about Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and his upcoming state plea deal, scheduled for December 14, 2007, while the defense objects strongly. The document includes excerpts from letters exchanged between the two sides, outlining their legal positions and the specifics of the proposed plea agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021410.jpg
This document details the complex discussions and objections surrounding victim notification in a legal case, likely involving Epstein, during late 2007. It highlights concerns raised by the FBI and defense attorneys, particularly Lefkowitz, about the implications of direct victim contact, including potential impeachment material, confidentiality breaches, and grand jury secrecy rules. Various parties, including Villafaña, case agents, and the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer, navigated these issues, with Villafaña also raising ethical concerns about 'cold calling' victims under Florida Bar Rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021408.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal handling of victim notifications regarding Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It describes how prosecutor Villafaña directed agents to inform victims about the deal without disclosing the full text, citing confidentiality clauses and the belief that victims only needed to know about restitution rights. The text highlights a discrepancy between what agents claim they told victim Courtney Wild in October 2007 versus Wild's 2015 declaration stating she was misled about the federal case being dropped.
DOJ-OGR-00021406.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein, focusing on the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) failure to notify victims. OPR's Oosterbaan disagreed with the USAO's decision on policy grounds, while USAO's Sloman believed notification was planned for a later date. Ultimately, despite initial plans by case agents to inform victims, Acosta decided to delay notification about the NPA and its monetary provisions until after Epstein's state guilty plea in June 2008, following objections from Epstein's defense counsel and internal concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00021291.jpg
This document details the tense negotiations in October 2007 between the U.S. Attorney's Office (Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña) and Epstein's defense (Lefkowitz) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) addendum and the postponement of Epstein's guilty plea. The text highlights USAO suspicions that Epstein's team was delaying the plea to address a civil lawsuit filed by a victim in New York and alleges Epstein planted false press stories to discredit victims. Acosta agreed to move the plea date from October 26 to November 20, 2007, citing a desire not to dictate schedules to the State Attorney.
DOJ-OGR-00021188.jpg
This document is Page 16 (xii) of an OPR report outlining the structure of an investigation into DOJ officials' conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the timeline of events from the initial 2005 police complaint through the 2006 federal investigation, the controversial 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and Epstein's 2008 guilty plea and subsequent incarceration ending in 2010. The page establishes that the report will analyze allegations of professional misconduct by five unnamed subjects and review government interactions with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00013197.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a complaint filed on Carolyn's behalf in 2008 against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The proceedings are interrupted when another attorney, Ms. Comey, makes an objection that is subsequently sustained by the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00013195.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca is questioning a witness, possibly named Carolyn, about a complaint that was 91 pages long with 209 paragraphs and did not mention Ms. Maxwell's name. They also discuss an Exhibit C4 and the filing of the complaint by Mr. Willits in state court.
DOJ-OGR-00004598.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal decision-making process regarding the notification of victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights that prosecutors (Villafaña, Acosta) deliberately chose not to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) or their rights to damages, citing concerns that doing so would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses and give the appearance of financial motivation. The document specifically references interviews with victim Courtney Wild and others in early 2008 where the existence of the signed NPA was withheld.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010549.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' (pages 208-209), included as an exhibit in a House Oversight report. It details the aggressive legal strategy employed by Jeffrey Epstein's 'army' of high-profile attorneys (including Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr) against the prosecution, including investigating prosecutors' families to find grounds for disqualification. The text confirms that despite these efforts, Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008, to state charges requiring 18 months imprisonment and sex offender registration.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023049.jpg
This article from The Virgin Islands Daily News details the 'unusual level of collaboration' between federal prosecutors (including Alexander Acosta and A. Marie Villafana) and Jeffrey Epstein's legal team during the negotiation of his non-prosecution agreement. It highlights the exclusion of victims from the process, the 'VIP treatment' Epstein received in jail (including work release authorized by Sheriff Ric Bradshaw), and subsequent legal battles by victims like 'Jane Doe No. 1' (Wild) and Jena-Lisa Jones to invalidate the agreement. The document also reveals that in 2011, the NY District Attorney's office under Cyrus Vance argued on Epstein's behalf to reduce his sex offender status, a move that shocked the presiding judge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021717.jpg
This document is a printout of a Palm Beach Daily News article dated August 19, 2011, detailing a court hearing regarding Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Judge Marra heard arguments from victims' lawyers (Edwards, Cassell) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee concerning whether the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to confer with victims before signing the deal. The judge also set a schedule for Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, to submit arguments regarding the unsealing of correspondence between the defense and federal prosecutors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity