SDFL
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | A prior investigation in Florida into conduct related to Epstein. | Florida | View |
EFTA00022052.pdf
A discovery production letter dated October 19, 2020, from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. The letter outlines a production of evidence including FBI Florida and NY documents, Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) materials, aerial video, and 3-D blueprints, spanning Bates numbers SDNY_GM_00328070 through SDNY_GM_00356148. The letter designates specific items as 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential' under a Protective Order.
EFTA00021197.pdf
This document is an email chain dated August 9, 2019, involving USDOJ officials (specifically an Associate U.S. Attorney from SDNY and John McEnany). They are discussing the retrieval of documents from the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) and noting a Miami Herald report about a prosecutor leaving that office. The email forwards a newsletter from The Marshall Project which mentions that the Florida governor has ordered an investigation into the Palm Beach Police Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.
EFTA00020434.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Cohen & Gresser) and the US Attorney's Office. Defense attorney Christian Everdell outlines seven specific technical issues regarding discovery production, including the inability of Maxwell to view files on prison computers, missing email attachments, and corrupted metadata on over 110,000 documents extracted from Jeffrey Epstein's devices. The prosecution team discusses internally setting up a call with their vendor, PAE, to address these errors.
EFTA00020430.pdf
This document contains an email chain from March 29, 2021, between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Christian Everdell, and the US Attorney's Office (USANYS). The correspondence details technical disputes regarding discovery materials, specifically the defense's inability to provide a hard drive to Maxwell in prison (MDC), issues with unreadable disks, missing email attachments, and discrepancies in metadata for over 110,000 files seized from Jeffrey Epstein's devices. The prosecution explains that some metadata is missing because files were 'carved or deleted' and offers solutions for transferring missing files.
EFTA00020426.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel (Christian Everdell) and the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding discovery disputes. The defense raises seven specific issues, including the inability of Maxwell to view files on prison computers, missing email attachments (over 109,000), metadata discrepancies suggesting files were created/modified after seizure, and gaps in Bates numbering. The prosecution responds by explaining technical limitations with the MDC (prison), asserting that metadata reflects the state of files upon FBI seizure or carving, and clarifying that certain images came from physical CDs seized from Epstein's residences in 2019 rather than electronic extractions.
EFTA00019092.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 regarding discovery disputes in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorney Christian Everdell outlines seven specific issues to the US Attorney's Office (USANYS), including technical problems with Maxwell accessing files on the prison computer, missing email attachments, and significant metadata discrepancies where files from Jeffrey Epstein's devices show creation/modification dates occurring after his death and the seizure of the devices (dates in 2020). The chain concludes with USANYS contractors scheduling an internal meeting to address these production issues.
EFTA00019021.pdf
Internal USANYS email thread from March 2021 discussing the 'Maxwell Review.' The Deputy Chief of the Public Corruption Unit updates colleagues on the status of the 'SDFL Epstein file,' noting that a vendor (PAE) was paid in October to scan 30,000 documents. The team is rushing to load these into Relativity and review them for pretrial disclosure deadlines by the end of April 2021, utilizing newly recruited paralegals.
EFTA00016962.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 2019 discussing a call from the Crim Chief in SDNY about an open criminal matter involving Jeff Epstein. The emails detail the SDNY's efforts to obtain evidence from the FBI in SDFL related to the Epstein investigation, and the Miami FBI's reluctance to share '6e materials' without a formal '6e letter' due to recusal. The sender seeks contact information for the new USAO/AUSA handling their old criminal case to facilitate communication with SDNY.
EFTA00015636.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (Cohen & Gresser) and the US Attorney's Office regarding discovery disputes. Key issues include the logistics of providing electronic discovery to Maxwell in prison (MDC) because she cannot use disks, missing email attachments, and metadata discrepancies for thousands of files and photos recovered from Epstein's devices and residences. The prosecution explains that 'carved' or deleted files lack original metadata and that certain photos came from seized CDs rather than devices processed by the FBI's CART unit.
EFTA00013997.pdf
This document is an email chain dated June 3, 2008, originating from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). A Staff Assistant sent a PDF attachment titled 'Epstein ltr Ofc of DAG 06 03 08.pdf' on behalf of the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, noting that the original signed letter would follow via FedEx. The email was subsequently replied to with 'thanks. We will be in touch' and then forwarded with 'Fyi'. The names of all senders and recipients are redacted.
EFTA00013989.pdf
This document is a letter from Kenneth Starr to a high-ranking DOJ official arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Starr alleges significant prosecutorial misconduct, including violations of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), leaks to the New York Times, and conflicts of interest within the US Attorney's Office. He claims the prosecution is politically motivated by Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and requests a 'de novo' independent review of the case.
EFTA00010017.pdf
A discovery letter dated November 9, 2021, from U.S. Attorney Damian Williams to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. The letter accompanies the production of 'Business Records from SDFL Files' (Bates SDNY_GM_02767074 - 02771980), which the government notes are likely duplicative of materials previously produced from Florida FBI files in 2020. The letter also clarifies confidentiality designations under the Protective Order.
EFTA00009939.pdf
This document is an internal email thread within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dated August 7, 2020. It provides a weekly update on several high-profile ongoing matters, including a premises warrant for 'RG' (possibly Rudy Giuliani or another target), a prosecution memo for the Hadden case (likely Robert Hadden) with a goal to beat the District Attorney of New York (DANY) to indictment, and a dispute involving 'Menedez'. Crucially, the email highlights anxiety regarding the lack of a decision on how to process '24 boxes of hard copy documents' from the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) Epstein investigation, which the sender notes is 'keeping me up at 3am'.
DOJ-OGR-00001617.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges. The Government asserts that the charges are timely under the law, independent of a prior investigation, and that the defendant's claims are baseless. Furthermore, the document argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk due to her international ties, financial resources, and French citizenship, noting that France does not extradite its citizens to the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00000348.jpg
This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (likely a bail/detention memorandum) submitted to Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman on July 8, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecution argues for detention based on overwhelming evidence, including an 'extraordinary volume' of nude photographs of minors found at Epstein's New York residence and call records linking him and his agents to victims. The document also argues that the previous Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting this case.
DOJ-OGR-00000341.jpg
This page from a government filing (July 12, 2019) argues before Judge Berman that a previous plea agreement in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not bind other districts or the broader 'United States' government. It further asserts that the defendant (Epstein) was the 'leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise' rather than a mere consumer, highlighting his role in recruiting, funding, and organizing the scheme across two states.
DOJ-OGR-00021102.jpg
This legal document argues that all remaining counts in a case must be dismissed because they fall within the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that binds the USAO-SDNY. The author contends the NPA's co-conspirator immunity is not limited to specific timeframes or offenses, citing a provision that allows the U.S. to prosecute Epstein for any federal offense upon a breach of the agreement as evidence of its broad scope. At a minimum, it is argued that Counts Three and Six must be dismissed as they fall within the NPA's scope as construed by the District Court.
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-00021834.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It details her argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) should have barred her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text also references a 2019 DOJ OPR investigation into the original handling of the Epstein case by SDFL prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021833.jpg
This legal document page outlines the timeline of legal actions involving Epstein and Maxwell following Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It details Epstein's 2019 indictment and death, followed by Maxwell's indictment and a subsequent superseding indictment by the SDNY in 2021. The core of the text describes Maxwell's unsuccessful motion to dismiss her indictment by leveraging the language of Epstein's NPA, a motion which the District Court denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021757.jpg
This legal document discusses an unusual co-conspirator clause in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein. It reveals that Epstein's defense team initially proposed a broad immunity deal to protect third parties, including "four named female assistants" and other employees like Ms. Maxwell, from any future criminal charges related to the federal investigation. The Government found this proposal "unusual" and countered with a more limited offer confined to the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00010451.jpg
This legal document excerpt argues that the government, specifically the SDNY, shifted its focus to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell for old crimes after choosing not to prosecute other alleged accomplices of Epstein. It highlights that this occurred after Epstein's arrest and death, leading to a 'tsunami' of negative media coverage that vilified Maxwell and shaped public opinion against her before her trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010449.jpg
This document is page 3 of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that a 240-month sentence recommended by Probation is excessive given the conditions of her confinement (solitary, threats against her life) and argues she should not receive a sentence appropriate for Epstein. It also provides context regarding the previous 'sweetheart deal' Epstein received in Florida under Alexander Acosta, noting the public outcry that followed.
DOJ-OGR-00005552.jpg
This legal document summarizes the recollections of an individual identified as "AK" regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. AK recalls the topic resurfacing due to a Miami Herald article, her interactions with the Public Corruption unit around February 2016, and sharing case materials with individuals like Alison Moe. AK asserts she had no role in opening the subsequent SDNY investigation into Epstein and was disturbed by how the case was initially resolved in the SDFL.
DOJ-OGR-00005551.jpg
This legal document outlines the recollections of an individual identified as 'AK' regarding discussions about the Epstein case. AK recalls a meeting with attorneys where she sought to clarify their proposal to have the SDNY re-investigate conduct previously handled in Florida, and she disputes an account of the meeting from Brad Edwards's book. The document also notes AK's vague memory of being told about depositions and the possibility of perjury charges against Maxwell, though no investigation was opened, and her decision to take no further action on the Epstein matter after calling Sean Watson.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity