USAO-SDFL
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
USAO-SDNY
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Main Justice
|
Professional governmental |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal agreement | Approval of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The court holds that the NPA between Epstein and USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Negotiation | Negotiation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Epstein. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | Approval of Epstein’s NPA with USAO-SDFL. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | Signing of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the USAO-SDFL and Epstein. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | A Non-Prosecution Agreement was made between the USAO-SDFL and Epstein, deferring federal prosecu... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Negotiation | Negotiations of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Epstein. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal agreement | USAO-SDFL made a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2013-07-05 | Legal filing | The USAO-SDFL filed a brief in a civil case clarifying its position that the NPA was limited to t... | S.D. Fla. | View |
20250117133905126_22-1426.pdf
This document is a formal legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the conviction and 240-month prison sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell for sex trafficking and related offenses. The court rejected Maxwell's appeal on five grounds, including arguments regarding a non-prosecution agreement, statute of limitations, juror misconduct, jury instructions, and sentencing reasonableness. The document also includes a subsequent order from November 2024 denying Maxwell's petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc.
EFTA00029269.pdf
An email thread from November 2020 regarding the 'US v. Maxwell' case. A member of the Maxwell legal team requests a USANYS contractor named Chris to organize documents from the 'USAO-SDFL Files' (Southern District of Florida) within the 'US v Epstein' Relativity database into batches for review. They also request the creation of a specific tag labeled 'Relevant to NPA' (Non-Prosecution Agreement), indicating the team was reviewing historical files related to the Florida investigation.
EFTA00029268.pdf
An email dated November 16, 2020, regarding the 'US v. Maxwell' case. The sender requests technical assistance to batch documents from the 'USAO-SDFL Files' (United States Attorney's Office - Southern District of Florida) within the 'US v Epstein' database on the Relativity platform for review. They also request a specific tag be created for documents 'Relevant to NPA' (Non-Prosecution Agreement).
EFTA00027424.pdf
This document is a Public Corruption Unit status update from November 6, 2020, regarding US v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details her indictment, arrest in New Hampshire, and detention conditions, while noting ongoing discovery work and collaboration with USAO-SDFL and West Palm Beach Police. The report highlights significant investigative steps, including the pursuit of an interview with Prince Andrew via MLAT after he declined a voluntary interview, and discussions regarding a felony disposition for a redacted individual.
EFTA00025398.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 2020 between the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). OPR is seeking to interview 32 individuals regarding their historical contacts (2005-2008) with the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and FBI Miami concerning the Epstein case. SDNY agrees to the interviews but requests that OPR avoid discussing the substance of the underlying criminal scheme or interactions with Epstein to avoid interfering with SDNY's active investigation, noting that any relevant statements must be handled as '3500 material' (Jencks Act). The correspondence lists the legal representation for the 32 individuals, noting the majority are represented by Brad Edwards.
EFTA00022546.pdf
This document is a Reply Brief filed by victims Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's intervention brief regarding remedies for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The victims argue for the partial rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed in 2007, specifically the immunity provisions, on the grounds that the agreement was illegally concealed from victims in violation of the CVRA. The brief refutes Epstein's arguments regarding due process, contract law, estoppel, and separation of powers, asserting that the NPA is unenforceable due to its illegal formation and the government's failure to confer with victims.
EFTA00022047.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 13-14, 2020, discussing technical discovery tasks for the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The correspondence involves the transfer and database indexing of files, specifically 26,164 documents from the 'FBI Files from Florida Office' and boxes of files from the 'USAO-SDFL' (Southern District of Florida). The participants are coordinating the loading of these materials into a 'US v Epstein' Relativity database and physical delivery of drives to 1 St. Andrews (SDNY office).
EFTA00021983.pdf
This document is an email chain from October 2020 regarding legal discovery tasks for the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The correspondence discusses the production of documents from the 'Epstein Relativity Databases' and specifically requests the loading of scanned files from the USAO-SDFL (Southern District of Florida) into the database. The participants clarify whether to produce 'full families' of documents or only tagged items.
EFTA00019599.pdf
A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team responding to a discovery request. The Government declines to produce broad FOIA-related documents citing lack of legal basis under Rule 16, but provides specific materials related to Radar Online and FBI-NY's involvement in the SDFL investigation as a courtesy. The letter also corrects a defense assertion regarding the FBI Florida office's role in the prosecution team.
EFTA00014380.pdf
An email chain from November 2020 between USANYS staff and contractors regarding the technical processing of the 'US v. Epstein (SW database)'. The correspondence details the receipt of hard drives from vendor PAE containing productions 15 & 16, the stamping and exporting of data parts 1-7 via Relativity, and the integration of USAO-SDFL files. There is a mention of a potential extension request to Judge Nathan regarding a November 19th deadline.
DOJ-OGR-00000086.tif
This document is a legal conclusion affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction for Ms. Maxwell on June 29, 2022. It details five key holdings, including that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with USAO-SDFL did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution by USAOSDNY, and that the District Court's sentence for Maxwell was procedurally reasonable. The document emphasizes the gravity of Maxwell's offense and the significant harm she inflicted.
DOJ-OGR-00000073.tif
This document discusses the scope and negotiation history of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein and the USAO-SDFL, examining whether it was intended to bind other districts like USAO-SDNY. It cites the United States Attorney's Manual regarding the approval process for agreements and notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied having a role in Epstein's NPA. The document also mentions that prosecution in Florida was deferred in favor of state prosecution, provided Epstein adhered to the agreement's conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00014876.jpg
This document is the final page (26) of a United States Court of Appeals ruling filed on January 23, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific arguments on appeal, including the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in Florida prevented her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014861.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the United States Attorney's Manual and the specific language of the agreement, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, to demonstrate that there was no intention to bind other federal districts from prosecuting Epstein. The document emphasizes that the agreement's scope is explicitly confined to 'this District' and defers to prosecution by the State of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. Maxwell argued that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejected her argument, holding that the NPA made with the USAO-SDFL does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting her.
DOJ-OGR-00014855.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell. The background section details Maxwell's role in coordinating and facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of young women and underage girls from 1994 until about 2004. It also mentions Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000316.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 9, 2019, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein does not prevent the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against him in other districts. It cites legal precedent and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to assert that the original agreement made by the USAO-SDFL was not binding on other jurisdictions like the Southern District of New York or the District of New Jersey. The document also addresses the rights of petitioners (victims) under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), stating they have not been denied the ability to confer with the government about potential charges against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00000315.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, was limited in scope. It contends the NPA only barred federal prosecution for specific offenses within the Southern District of Florida and did not prevent the United States from bringing other federal criminal charges against him elsewhere. The document quotes the agreement to support its claim that the federal government's ability to prosecute Epstein was not fully relinquished.
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
This legal document argues against the Petitioners' request to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. It contends that the Petitioners' claims are not ripe for adjudication, citing legal precedent, and asserts that contrary to their claims, they were consulted by the government. Specifically, it states that Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña spoke with Petitioners about Epstein's offenses against them prior to the agreement being signed.
DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg
This document is the final page (page 26) of an appellate court decision dated September 17, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court lists five key holdings, rejecting Maxwell's arguments regarding Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, the statute of limitations, a motion for a new trial, jury instructions, and sentencing reasonableness. The document concludes by explicitly affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
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-00000012.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) arguing that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was legally limited only to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) and not binding on other federal districts. It cites the US Attorney's Manual and the specific text of the NPA authorized by R. Alexander Acosta to support the claim that the agreement contained limiting language regarding its scope. The text emphasizes that the negotiation history does not support an inference that the agreement was intended to apply nationwide.
DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The text references a $750,000 fine imposed on Maxwell and cites legal precedent establishing that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district office where they are entered.
DOJ-OGR-00000006.jpg
This document page is from an appellate court decision affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the background of the case, stating that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell groomed women and girls to facilitate Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse. It also briefly mentions Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida, where he agreed to plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution.
DOJ-OGR-00000005.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the issues presented on appeal regarding the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, including arguments concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and juror impartiality. The court summarizes its holdings, stating that the NPA did not bind the prosecution in New York, the statute of limitations was not violated, and the motion for a new trial based on juror conduct was properly denied.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity