United States Attorney’s Office
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A criminal investigation and prosecution where the defendant, Thomas, is seeking discovery materi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A joint investigation that was the subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Investigation | A joint investigation that was the subject of Epstein's NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | Potentially fraudulent claims are forwarded to law enforcement agencies for possible investigatio... | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Meeting | Meetings took place with the United States Attorney's Office where sealed materials may have been... | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal assessment | Acosta contended that in 2006, it would have been unusual for a U.S. Attorney's Office to get inv... | N/A | View |
019.pdf
This document is a consolidated court order from the Southern District of Florida dated May 14, 2009, covering multiple civil lawsuits (Jane Does, C.M.A., etc.) against Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Kenneth A. Marra requests the United States government provide its official position regarding Epstein's motion to stay these civil cases. Epstein argued that defending himself in these civil suits might violate his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO and subject him to criminal prosecution.
EFTA00029223.pdf
An email dated October 4, 2021, from an Assistant US Attorney (SDNY) regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell ('GM') case. The prosecutor is inquiring about documents related to an August 22, 2006, FBI interview (302) with a former Epstein employee who reportedly provided records of her work hours and personal notes from her time of employment.
EFTA00028562.pdf
An email dated June 19, 2020, from a Legal Assistant/Criminal Clerk at the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) to redacted recipients. The email transmits stamped and signed Non-Disclosure Orders (NDOs) and Pen Register (PEN) documents that had been submitted to the Magistrate Court, specifically referencing an AT&T attachment.
EFTA00028312.pdf
This document is an email chain dated July 8, 2019, between officials at the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The correspondence concerns the request and distribution of the indictment and Detention Memo regarding Jeffrey Epstein, noting that the documents are 'no longer sealed.' The bottom email is a request for the documents from an Associate U.S. Attorney.
EFTA00028274.pdf
This document is a letter dated November 8, 2021, from defense attorney Christian R. Everdell to the US Attorney's Office regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It serves as a Rule 16 disclosure, listing specific documents the defense may use in their case-in-chief, including AT&T phone records, FedEx records, Customs and Border Patrol records, Shopper's Travel records, and Larry Visoski flight manifests. The letter also lists General Releases from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program (with names redacted), Palm Beach residence floorplans, and the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
EFTA00025263.pdf
This document is an email thread from September 24-25, 2020, between an official at the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and a departing colleague. The US Attorney's Office counsel asks who to contact regarding Ghislaine Maxwell after the colleague's departure. The colleague directs them to a contact at MCC New York and mentions new attorneys arriving at MDC Brooklyn soon.
EFTA00024556.pdf
This document is a press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York dated July 2, 2020, announcing the arrest and charging of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details allegations that between 1994 and 1997, Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to entice, transport, and sexually abuse minors, playing a critical role in grooming victims. The document also notes she is charged with perjury regarding false statements made in 2016 depositions.
EFTA00023909.pdf
This document is an email chain from February 10, 2021, among attorneys at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The discussion concerns legal strategy in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, specifically referencing a 'Bill of Particulars,' 'BOP/Brady letters,' and an 'accountant privilege letter.' One attorney, identified as Rob, is coordinating with colleagues to divide work on motions and opposition drafts.
EFTA00021771.pdf
An email chain from April 2020 involving a Paralegal Specialist named Hamilton at the SDNY (Southern District of New York) requesting a consolidated hard drive of evidence 'returns' for the Epstein case. The recipient notes security restrictions preventing the attachment of external drives to the system holding 'financial productions' and plans to consult a special agent. The final email notes that Hamilton is leaving SDNY and hands off the case responsibilities to a colleague.
EFTA00016735.pdf
An internal email from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) Narcotics Unit dated January 14, 2020. The email discusses a motion filed by attorney Barket regarding the 'Tartaglione Motion' seeking a hearing on the 'MCC video,' likely referring to surveillance footage related to Jeffrey Epstein's cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione.
EFTA00010302.pdf
This document is an email dated November 15, 2019, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The subject is 'draft MCC press release' and it includes a Word document attachment of the same name. The sender's identity is redacted, though their title and office address at One St. Andrew's Plaza are visible.
EFTA00010241.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 2021 between an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and an Assistant Special Agent in Charge at Homeland Security Investigations. They coordinate a phone call, after which the AUSA sends several PDF attachments with filenames beginning with 'SDNY_GM', likely referring to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) shortly before her trial.
EFTA00009864.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 2020 involving the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. A Deputy Chief from the White Plains Division is requesting a final copy of the BOP's 'Psychological Reconstruction of Inmate Jeffrey Epstein' and the MCC's response. The stated purpose is to evaluate discovery obligations for the capital phase of the Tartaglione trial. The most recent email indicates that the request is being processed through the Central Office.
DOJ-OGR-00014860.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 2, 2024. It argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was limited solely to the Southern District of Florida and does not prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites the 'Annabi' precedent to support the conclusion that the agreement does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00001561.jpg
This is a court order filed on July 9, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20-CR-330), issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order sets the logistics for a remote arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing scheduled for July 14, 2020. It provides specific dial-in instructions for the press, public, and international callers, and instructs the US Attorney's Office to coordinate the participation of alleged victims who wish to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00001485.jpg
This document is an Unsealing Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 2, 2020, for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, the order grants an application from the U.S. Attorney's Office to unseal the indictment against Maxwell. The application was made by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Rossmiller.
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with the defendant (Epstein) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not prevent his current prosecution in the Southern District of New York. The prosecution asserts that the language of the NPA explicitly limits its scope to the SDFL and does not cover the alleged conduct or victims in New York. The filing cites specific text from the NPA and legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support its position that one U.S. Attorney's office agreement does not bind another.
DOJ-OGR-00000317.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely by the DOJ) arguing that the Petitioners' claims are unripe. The government contends that the Petitioners are not precluded from conferring with government attorneys in other districts about pursuing charges against Epstein not covered by the Non-Prosecution Agreement. It cites case law to support the dismissal of claims based on future, hypothetical events.
DOJ-OGR-00021085.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It contains legal arguments attempting to distance the current case from the precedent set in *U.S. v. Annabi*, arguing that *Annabi* is an outlier regarding whether a plea agreement in one district binds another. The text consists primarily of extensive footnotes citing various Second Circuit decisions (*Prisco*, *Ashraf*, *Salameh*, etc.) that limited plea agreements to specific US Attorney's Offices, supporting the government's position against the Appellant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00021075.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, arguing that all counts against Ghislaine Maxwell should be dismissed based on the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein. It claims the NPA immunized Maxwell as a 'potential co-conspirator' and cites Supreme Court precedent requiring prosecutors to fulfill plea agreement promises. Additionally, the text argues jury prejudice occurred due to media interviews given by accusers named Carolyn and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00020925.jpg
This document is a juror questionnaire, identified as Juror ID 50, from a legal case filed on March 9, 2022. The juror denies that they or any close relations have ever been the subject of an investigation, a victim of a crime, or a party to a legal dispute with the United States government or its agencies, including the FBI and NYPD.
DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a motion on behalf of a defendant named Maxwell. It argues that the government colluded with another party, starting in early 2016, to have Maxwell charged with perjury and that the government attempted to deprive her of due process through an ex parte request. The filing references a separate civil case where a similar government request was denied and calls for an evidentiary hearing to investigate potential collusion with the prosecutor's office.
DOJ-OGR-00002362(1).jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 134) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government colluded with a redacted third party (likely civil plaintiffs) starting in 2016 to engineer perjury charges against Maxwell. It contrasts two judicial rulings: one granting a government ex parte request and another rejecting an identical request in a different civil case, characterizing the government's actions as an attempt to deprive Maxwell of due process.
DOJ-OGR-00022086.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a discovery request from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends that it is not required to produce records from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) because the BOP was not part of the prosecution team or involved in a 'joint investigation'. The document distinguishes the roles of the prosecution (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, DOJ-OIG) from the BOP, noting the Government obtained BOP records via subpoena and was not involved in the BOP's internal investigation into Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (dated December 2, 2024) related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein was geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida and does not bind the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) or prevent them from prosecuting Maxwell. It cites the legal precedent 'United States v. Annabi' to support the claim that plea agreements do not automatically bind other districts unless affirmatively stated.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity