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-00002977.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida cannot logically grant Maxwell immunity for future crimes (specifically perjury) committed a decade later, nor grant her broader immunity than Epstein himself received. A footnote clarifies the scope of the original Florida investigation, noting that while Minor Victim-2 was interviewed then, Minor Victims 1 and 3 were not interviewed and did not speak to law enforcement until 2019.
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-00002975.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The central issue is whether a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and Epstein also prevents other districts from prosecuting Epstein's co-conspirators. The government contends that the defendant has provided no evidence to support this claim and that legal precedent within the circuit confirms that the NPA does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). It cites a 2013 brief from the USAO-SDFL, an OPR Report, and Department of Justice guidelines to establish that the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to, and did not intend to, prevent Epstein's prosecution in any other federal district. The central theme is that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and did not provide nationwide immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00002973.jpg
This legal document details communications and events following the signing of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It reveals internal dissent within the Department of Justice, citing an OPR Report where official Oosterbaan described the NPA as overly advantageous to Epstein. The document also notes that Assistant Attorney General Fisher denied any role in reviewing or approving the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00002972.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the USAO-SDFL with Jeffrey Epstein did not bind other districts. It cites the November 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, noting that while USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria Villafaña consulted with DOJ Child Exploitation Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, this does not support the defendant's claim of a wider immunity promise.
DOJ-OGR-00002971.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) arguing that the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not involved in Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The Government asserts that communications between the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and SDNY were solely regarding an old civil lawsuit from the 1990s, not plea negotiations. The text refutes defense claims involving 'Main Justice' and provides context on an AUSA who left the SDNY in April 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
This legal document argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is binding only on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and not on other districts, such as the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support the claim that the NPA binds other districts, dismissing a privilege log from an investigation into Epstein as irrelevant to this specific point. The document concludes that the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law because the text of the NPA does not support a broader application.
DOJ-OGR-00002969.jpg
This document is page 35 of a court filing (Document 204) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and did not provide national immunity for co-conspirators. It contends that the defendant's interpretation—that Epstein secured broader immunity for co-conspirators than himself—is counterintuitive and unsupported by the text.
DOJ-OGR-00002968.jpg
This document is page 34 of a legal filing (Document 204) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. It discusses the legal interpretation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically rejecting the defendant's argument that the NPA binds the entire federal government rather than just the Southern District of Florida. The text quotes the specific NPA section granting immunity to potential co-conspirators, explicitly naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00004732.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defense's motion for early disclosure of impeachment material related to a witness, Minor Victim-4. The Government contends that Minor Victim-4's prior consistent statement from a deposition, made over a decade before the defendant's 2020 indictment, confirms the defendant's role in scheduling her massages with Epstein, thereby undermining the defense's claim of recent fabrication. The Government affirms its intent to provide this material ten days before trial, in line with customary practice.
DOJ-OGR-00004726.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on May 25, 2021, likely by the prosecution. It argues that the 'S2 Indictment' was filed timely and not delayed for strategic reasons, explaining that interviews with 'Minor Victim-4' were delayed until early 2021 due to COVID-19 travel constraints. The text refutes the defendant's motion to dismiss based on pre-indictment delay.
DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing from May 25, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO-SDFL does not protect the current defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause because the NPA was merely an agreement between parties, not a judicial adjudication of facts. The text cites *United States v. Cambindo Valencia* to distinguish how plea agreements affecting third parties (like Jesus and Rosalinda Losada) operate legally.
DOJ-OGR-00004720.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the defendant was never subjected to double jeopardy in the Southern District of Florida. It asserts that jeopardy never attached because she was never indicted, convicted, or faced adjudication of facts for the offenses in question. The document cites several legal precedents to support the claim that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving the defendant and Epstein did not trigger jeopardy protections as no indictment was ever filed.
DOJ-OGR-00004714.jpg
This page is from a government legal filing (Document 295) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). Citing the *Annabi* precedent, the government asserts that plea agreements are generally only binding in the specific district where they are signed, not universally across all federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00005586.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing against the defense's attempts to introduce certain evidence. The prosecution contends that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein is irrelevant to the current case and that the fact the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after a Florida investigation is not admissible to challenge the credibility of Minor Victim-4. The document suggests that introducing these elements would mislead the jury and open the door to rebuttal from the government about the circumstances of the prior investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00005583.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defense's motion to introduce evidence regarding the origins of the New York investigation. The prosecution contends that the defense's claims—that the investigation was improperly motivated by a prior non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, his death, and public pressure—are irrelevant to the defendant's guilt and would create a prejudicial 'circus' at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005580.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated October 29, 2021, argues that the jury should not consider the adequacy or methods of the government's investigation when determining a defendant's guilt. Citing multiple legal precedents, the author contends that details about investigations, including the one involving Jeffrey Epstein, are irrelevant to the case at hand. The document refutes the defense's position that they should be allowed to challenge the thoroughness of the government's investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00005567.jpg
This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 383) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses 'Minor Victim-4,' arguing that the defense's attempts to attack her credibility based on statements made to the USAO-SDFL are irrelevant to her privacy interests regarding her upcoming testimony. Large portions of the page are redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00005556.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed by the government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The motion outlines arguments to protect the privacy of minor victims by allowing testimony under pseudonyms and sealing exhibits. It also seeks to preclude the defense from introducing what the government deems irrelevant evidence and improper arguments, including prior investigations of the defendant and the government's alleged motives.
DOJ-OGR-00005502.jpg
This legal filing argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding the USAO-SDFL's 2008 decision not to charge Ghislaine Maxwell. It highlights inconsistencies in a redacted witness's testimony between 2007 and 2020, specifically noting that the witness only accused Maxwell of sexual contact (fondling breasts) 13 years later during an interview with the New York FBI. The document lists various evidentiary exhibits including message pad slips, phone records, and FedEx records.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity