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 |
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00021396.jpg
This legal document details the FBI's victim notification procedures during the 2006 investigation into Epstein. It describes how, starting in August 2006, the FBI's Victim Specialist, directed by the case agent, used the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send letters to victims informing them of their CVRA rights and the case status. The document also notes the use of pamphlets, such as "Help for Victims of Crime," to explain that the U.S. Attorney's Office would be responsible for ensuring their rights were afforded after an indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021348.jpg
This document details the rationale behind Alexander Acosta's decision to pursue a state-based, pre-charge disposition in the Jeffrey Epstein case instead of a federal trial. Acosta explained to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that his decision was based on federalism concerns, the weakness of the case, and a desire to act as a 'backstop' to the state prosecution, ensuring Epstein was registered as a sex offender. This contrasts with the views of other prosecutors, like Villafaña, who believed strongly in the federal case and wanted to proceed to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta justifies the decision not to pursue a more aggressive federal prosecution by citing the Petite policy, which presumes deference to state prosecutions, and arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice." He also expresses concerns that a federal trial would have set unfavorable legal precedent regarding solicitation versus trafficking and would have been traumatic for the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00010532.jpg
This is a court order issued on June 21, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order corrects the contact information for Wendy Olsen, the Coordinator of the Victim Witness Unit, and establishes the procedure for victims who wish to make a statement at sentencing. Victims are required to submit a written statement by email to the Victim Witness Unit by noon on June 23, 2022, and must indicate if they also wish to make an oral statement.
DOJ-OGR-00010769.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 688) filed on June 29, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It shows page 13 of a completed questionnaire for Juror ID: 2. The juror answered 'No' to questions regarding prior investigations (Q24), being a victim of a crime (Q25), or having legal disputes with US agencies such as the FBI or NYPD (Q26).
DOJ-OGR-00010526.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on June 21, 2022, in the criminal case of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order establishes the procedure for victims who wish to make a statement at sentencing, requiring them to submit a written statement via email to the Victim Witness Unit by noon on June 23, 2022. The Government is also ordered to inform the Defendant of any anticipated victim impact statements by 2:00 p.m. on the same day.
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
This document is a page from a legal report detailing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's testimony to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding his decision not to federally prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta justified his actions by citing the Petite policy, which respects state sovereignty, arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice" like no jail time, which did not occur with Epstein's two-year state sentence. He also expressed concerns that a federal trial would be traumatic for victims and could set a bad legal precedent by conflating state-level solicitation with federal trafficking charges.
DOJ-OGR-00002976.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not immunize the defendant, Maxwell, from prosecution. The argument is based on two points: the NPA's scope is strictly limited to specific federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and the mere mention of "co-conspirator" does not automatically include Maxwell within the agreement's protections.
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
This court document (page 16 of a filing from June 2021) denies Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the Government deliberately misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon regarding communications with the Boies Schiller firm (BSF). The court rules that the prosecutor's failure to mention a 2016 email/meeting with Giuffre's attorneys during an April 2019 hearing was likely because the question was understood to refer only to the *current* investigation, not all historical contacts. The text references the standard set by *Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.* regarding coordination between civil litigants and criminal prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00005368.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 22, 2021. It contains a series of voir dire questions for potential jurors, designed to uncover biases related to past experiences with crime, legal disputes with government entities like the U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, or NYPD, and preconceived notions about law enforcement witnesses. The document also informs jurors that they will hear testimony about evidence obtained from searches that the Court has deemed legal.
DOJ-OGR-00005335.jpg
This document is a proposed juror questionnaire from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 22, 2021. It includes a section on 'Media Issues' which is contested by the government and defended by the defendant. The defendant's response argues for in-depth questioning about media exposure, citing legal precedents like the Tsarnaev case to emphasize the necessity of uncovering potential juror bias in high-profile cases involving individuals like Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002883.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a submission by Sigrid S. McCawley arguing against a defendant's motion to subpoena evidence from a third party, BSF. The document contends that the requested materials—including communications, a Grand Jury subpoena, cowboy boots, and photographs involving individuals like Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Jeffrey Epstein—are either obtainable from the government or not relevant enough to require pre-trial production. The author concludes that the defendant's motion should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00005290.jpg
This document is page 14 (marked -13- internally) of a Juror Questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains screening questions regarding the potential jurors' past experiences with grand jury investigations, being a victim of a crime, or having legal disputes with government agencies like the FBI or NYPD. The document features strikethroughs indicating a renumbering of the questions (e.g., changing question 23 to 24).
DOJ-OGR-00005224.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, filed on October 14, 2021. The order addresses the court's receipt of a letter from a victim's lawyer regarding trial attendance, stating it will be filed under seal and shared with counsel. It also outlines procedures for ensuring public, victim, and defendant's family access to the upcoming trial, providing contact information for coordination through the Victim Witness Unit and the District Executive's Office.
DOJ-OGR-00005176.jpg
This legal document, filed on September 7, 2021, outlines the program integrity and confidentiality rules for a claims resolution program. It details the responsibilities of claimants to provide truthful information, the severe consequences of fraudulent claims including referral to law enforcement, and the strict confidentiality protocols governing how claimant information is handled by the Program Administrator. The document specifies that only very limited information can be shared with 'the Estate' for the purpose of claim evaluation, ensuring claimant privacy is protected.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity