U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-05-25 | Legal filing | The Deferred Prosecution Agreement was electronically filed with the court. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
EFTA00015277.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 2021 between US Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case. They discuss preparation for a suppression hearing, exchange legal documents including transcripts from Judge Sweet and Magistrate Judge Netburn, and identify Stan Pottinger as a lawyer from Boies Schiller who represented a civil plaintiff. The prosecutors also express frustration with the defense filing 12 separate memos of law (MOLs) to evade page limits.
EFTA00015003.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 24, 2019, between officials at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), specifically involving the Deputy Chief of the Public Corruption Unit. The emails discuss the progress of the Epstein investigation, detailing a recent trip to Fort Lauderdale where investigators interviewed two witnesses at the BSF (Boies Schiller Flexner) office, while a third witness declined to appear. The correspondence also mentions ongoing negotiations with attorney Robbie Kaplan regarding a potential interview with a high-profile individual (name redacted) who is concerned about their legal 'exposure,' with discussions moving toward an attorney proffer.
EFTA00013359.pdf
This document is the Executive Summary of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report from November 2020 investigating the conduct of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and other prosecutors regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that while Acosta exercised "poor judgment" in resolving the case via the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, he and his staff did not commit professional misconduct as defined by DOJ standards. The report details the history of the investigation, the secret negotiations, the subsequent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), and the eventual fallout leading to Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019.
EFTA00013199.pdf
Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan in U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated July 30, 2020. The Court ruled in favor of the Government regarding a protective order, denying Maxwell's request to publicly name victims who had previously spoken to the media and denying her request to restrict witnesses from using discovery materials for purposes other than trial preparation.
EFTA00011024.pdf
An email chain from September 4, 2019, between Audrey Strauss and a redacted Co-Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The correspondence confirms that exchanged letters between Professor Bruce Green and Judge Berman regarding case 19 Cr. 490 (the Epstein case) have been docketed.
EFTA00010466.pdf
This document is an internal email from the Public Affairs division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, dated July 3, 2019. It circulates a link to a PDF hosted on DocumentCloud regarding a Second Circuit Court decision to unseal files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The sender's specific identity is redacted, though their role and office are visible.
EFTA00010425.pdf
An email dated August 15, 2019, from a Public Affairs officer at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to a redacted recipient. The email, with the subject 'Found her!', shares a New York Post article reporting that Ghislaine Maxwell was spotted at an In-N-Out Burger shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's death.
EFTA00010132.pdf
This document is an internal Department of Justice email chain from November 9, 2021. The Deputy Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section forwarded a 'citizen correspondence' referencing Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the U.S. Attorney's Office (USANYS). The correspondence was subsequently filed into a 'NTW 3500 folder' (likely referring to Jencks Act material for the Maxwell trial). The DOJ noted their standard response to such citizen emails is to advise the writer to contact the FBI.
EFTA00009965.pdf
An email chain from September 12, 2019, between officials at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. They are discussing a New York Post article regarding a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence confirms that the office has previously spoken to and interviewed the specific victim mentioned in the article, with one official asking how much of the article's content was covered in their interview.
DOJ-OGR-00000163.tif
This document details legal proceedings related to Jeffrey Epstein. On February 21, 2019, a district court ruled that the government violated the CVRA by failing to inform victims about a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and misleading them about ongoing federal prosecution. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York indicted Epstein on July 2, 2019, for sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors, covering alleged activities from 2002 to 2005.
DOJ-OGR-00000887.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering a period in August 2020. It details a judicial order denying a broad defense request regarding witness privacy and discovery materials, followed by a log of subsequent legal filings (motions, affidavits, and endorsements) between the defense team (Everdell, Pagliuca) and the prosecution (Rossmiller) regarding discovery disclosure and protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00000849.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 21-770) detailing legal proceedings in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell between July and August 2020. It includes a judicial order rejecting a defense request regarding protective orders to safeguard witness privacy, followed by a log of subsequent letter motions and responses regarding discovery disclosure filed by defense attorneys Christian Everdell and Jeffrey Pagliuca, and government attorney Alex Rossmiller. The document tracks the procedural back-and-forth regarding the handling of sensitive discovery materials and protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00020498.jpg
This document contains a court docket entry and a Memorandum Opinion & Order from July 30, 2020, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order resolves disputes regarding a protective order, specifically denying Maxwell's request to publicly name alleged victims who had previously spoken publicly about her or Jeffrey Epstein, and denying her request to restrict Government witnesses from using discovery materials for purposes other than trial preparation. The court ruled in favor of the Government's proposed protective order to safeguard witness privacy and ensure fair trial procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00016900.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the admissibility of a deposition transcript of Mr. Epstein. The deposition, taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, concerns when Epstein moved from a property on East 69th Street to 9 East 71st Street, which he stated was around January 1996. Rohrbach compares this evidentiary issue to a separate matter involving '44 Kinnerton Street'.
DOJ-OGR-00016898.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger requests the court take judicial notice of a 1996 case (96 CV 8307) involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ivan Fisher to establish facts regarding Epstein's residences. The text reveals that Epstein's residence at East 69th Street was leased from the U.S. Government (who seized it from the government of Iran) starting in 1992, a detail used to challenge the timeline of a witness named 'Jane' regarding which property she visited between 1994 and 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00002072.jpg
This document is a statement from a forensic accountant and private investigator detailing their professional qualifications and extensive experience. The individual outlines their education, a 25-year career as a Special Agent with the IRS-CID from 1973 to 1998, and their work on complex financial fraud investigations in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, and NYPD. The statement serves to establish the author's expertise and credibility in financial investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00022135.jpg
This document is a Deferred Prosecution Agreement filed on May 25, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It outlines the terms between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defendant Tova Noel, who was indicted on November 19, 2019, for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and making false statements. For a period of six months, Noel must adhere to specific conditions, such as obeying laws and not leaving the country, in exchange for the deferral of her prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00019469.jpg
This document contains a chronological list of docket entries from August 2020 in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The entries detail various legal motions, including requests for discovery disclosure, protective orders, and sealing of documents, alongside judicial orders and endorsements by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It concludes with a notice of attorney appearance for the USA.
DOJ-OGR-00009082.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they have no association with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and no pre-existing opinions about the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, or former Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss that would impede their ability to be a fair and impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00019805.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 21-58) detailing proceedings in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell between July 30, 2020, and August 18, 2020. It includes a detailed ruling by Judge Alison J. Nathan rejecting a defense request regarding protective orders and privacy of witnesses, citing it as 'unprecedented' and 'too broad.' The docket entries list various filings, including motions for discovery disclosure by defense attorneys Christian Everdell and Jeffrey Pagliuca, and opposition responses from the Government (Alex Rossmiller).
DOJ-OGR-00019781.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering events from July 30, 2020, to August 18, 2020. It details legal arguments regarding a protective order for discovery materials, specifically concerning witness privacy and the defense's ability to reference individuals. The log tracks the filing of motions, affidavits, and responses by defense attorneys (Everdell, Pagliuca) and the government (Rossmiller), as well as orders issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019755.jpg
This document is a court docket page from the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58). It details legal maneuvers regarding discovery disclosure and protective orders between July and August 2020, including a ruling by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying a defense request deemed 'unprecedented' and 'too broad' regarding witness privacy. The docket lists filings by defense attorneys Christian Everdell and Jeffrey Pagliuca, and opposition by Assistant US Attorney Alex Rossmiller.
DOJ-OGR-00005332.jpg
This document is page 10 of a juror questionnaire from the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. The questionnaire asks potential jurors to disclose any personal acquaintance or dealings with key individuals involved in the case, including the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, the prosecution team, the defense team, and the presiding judge, Alison J. Nathan. The purpose is to identify potential biases that could prevent a juror from being fair and impartial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity