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 |
DOJ-OGR-00021099.jpg
This document is a page from a 2023 legal filing reviewing the historical handling of the Epstein case. It highlights that the investigation was national in scope, involving coordination between the Southern District of Florida and New York, and notes that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was specifically modified to broaden immunity for co-conspirators beyond just Florida. Crucially, it mentions investigators knew Epstein used hidden cameras in his NY home to record sexual encounters and that AUSA Villafana sought to investigate Epstein's assistants in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021098.jpg
This legal document page describes the extensive, eight-month negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) starting in January 2007, contrasting it with a potential plea agreement that was also drafted. It emphasizes the deep involvement of multiple levels of the U.S. government, including the Department of Justice, the USAO for the Southern District of Florida, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the FBI, in the negotiation and approval process.
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
DOJ-OGR-00001792.jpg
This document is a status update to Judge Alison Nathan regarding the Government's discovery process in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (implied by case number/context). It details the Prosecution Team's acquisition of investigative files from the Palm Beach State Attorney (PBSA), the FBI Florida Office (24 boxes), and the USAO-SDFL (28 boxes) related to the 2006-2010 Epstein investigations. It also notes that the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has gathered internal emails regarding the handling of the prior Florida investigation, including those of a primary prosecutor referred to as 'Attorney-1'.
DOJ-OGR-00021903.jpg
This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021889.jpg
This legal document page discusses the jurisdictional limits of U.S. Attorneys' offices in the context of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It states that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not notified of the NPA made by the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), and that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any involvement. The text argues, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, that a U.S. Attorney's authority is confined to their specific district and does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021882.jpg
This document is page 5 of an appellate court decision (filed Dec 2, 2024) affirming Ghislaine Maxwell's 2022 conviction. The text outlines the background of the case, stating that Maxwell groomed underage girls for Epstein starting in 1994 and discusses Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors in Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021873.jpg
This document is a legal opinion from an appellate court, filed on October 20, 2022, which summarizes its reasons for affirming a lower District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell. The court found no error in the lower court's rulings, including that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement did not prevent Maxwell's prosecution and that her conviction and sentence were sound.
DOJ-OGR-00021859.jpg
This document excerpt discusses the jurisdictional scope of a U.S. Attorney's office, questioning whether the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein by the USAO-SDFL could bind other districts like the USAO-SDNY. It references the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that a U.S. Attorney's authority is limited to their specific district. The document also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any role in reviewing or approving Epstein's NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
This page from a legal filing (stamped 2024 but discussing historical legal arguments) analyzes the scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the NPA and the actions of the USAO-SDFL (under R. Alexander Acosta) were limited to the Southern District of Florida and were not intended to bind other federal districts, citing the United States Attorney's Manual. A footnote quotes the specific language of the NPA where federal prosecution is deferred in favor of state prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021856.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court affirms a lower District Court's decision, ruling that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The court holds that such agreements are generally limited to the specific district in which they are made.
DOJ-OGR-00021820.jpg
This document is a legal ruling from an appellate court, dated September 17, 2024, which affirms the conviction of Maxwell. The court rejects several grounds for appeal, including that Epstein's prior non-prosecution agreement should have barred her prosecution and that her indictment was outside the statute of limitations. The ruling upholds the District Court's judgment of conviction from June 29, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00021806.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) discussing the legal validity and scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the USAO-SDNY was not notified of, nor did it approve, the NPA created by the USAO-SDFL, and cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that one US Attorney's actions in a specific district do not bind other districts or the nation. It also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division confirmed to the Office of Professional Responsibility that she had no role in the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021805.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited in scope to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the agreement's text, the negotiation history, and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to support the claim that the NPA was not intended to bind other districts from prosecuting Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021803.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court addresses Maxwell's argument 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 rejects this claim, holding that the NPA made by the Florida office does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY), which brought the charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021799.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. It provides background information, stating that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell coordinated and facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls in the United States. The document also references Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
This document is page 27 of a legal filing (dated June 29, 2023) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the District Court (Judge Nathan) correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss without a hearing because the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida were clear and did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. A footnote clarifies that even if the NPA applied, it would only cover specific counts (Count Six) and not others (Counts Three and Four) involving different victims and time periods.
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes claims made by Maxwell regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that Maxwell's assertion of senior-level Justice Department approval for the NPA is a mischaracterization of the record, stating that any review by offices like the Deputy Attorney General's occurred only after the NPA was signed and in response to Epstein's actions, and did not constitute an approval of the agreement itself.
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell cannot enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Jeffrey Epstein. The reasoning is twofold: first, Maxwell was not named as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement, and second, the NPA's terms are explicitly limited to prosecutions brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) within that specific district, and therefore do not bar the current charges against her.
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
DOJ-OGR-00003078.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, provides the factual background for a case, detailing how Virginia Roberts Giuffre joined a lawsuit concerning a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Giuffre alleged that the defendant was a "primary co-conspirator" who procured underage girls for Epstein and participated in sexual abuse. The document cites Giuffre's specific allegations that the defendant persuaded her to go to Epstein's mansion and was involved in a sexual encounter there.
DOJ-OGR-00003009.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the admissibility of certain evidence in the case against Epstein. It cites multiple legal precedents establishing that proof of lawful conduct on some occasions is irrelevant to disproving a specific criminal charge. The document applies this to the Epstein case, asserting that a prior investigation's findings about his conduct in the 2000s are irrelevant to the current charges from 1994-1997, and notes that two key victims were only interviewed for the first time in late 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
This document is page 23 of a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing against her motions to dismiss. The prosecution asserts that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida does not apply to the current indictment or district, and denies her request for discovery due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the document argues that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 because the statute allows prosecution for child sexual abuse offenses as long as the victims are alive, rejecting Maxwell's argument that the statute applies only prospectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002982.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues against a defendant's motion for discovery related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). It heavily cites an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report which concluded that prosecutors, including Alex Acosta and Villafaña, did not intend the NPA's 'co-conspirator' clause to protect Epstein's influential associates. Instead, the provision was meant for four specific women, as prosecutors viewed Epstein as the primary target and were not interested in prosecuting others.
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
This document is page 47 of a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (2021). It argues that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was not intended to protect Maxwell. Citing an OPR report and an interview with former prosecutor Maria Villafaña, the text states that while prosecutors knew of a 'socialite' friend of Epstein (Maxwell), they had no evidence against her in 2007 and intended the immunity provision to apply only to four specific female assistants.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity