DOJ-OGR-00000800.jpg
729 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
729 KB
Summary
This legal document outlines the U.S. Government's argument that Jeffrey Epstein attempted to influence potential witnesses after a critical Miami Herald report was published in late 2018. The government alleges Epstein paid a total of $350,000 to two 'potential co-conspirators,' identified as Individual I and Individual II, for whom he had previously secured protection in his 2007 Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement. Individual II is specifically described as an employee who facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking of minors.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the legal document, accused of witness tampering and making payments to potential co-conspirators.
|
| Julie K. Brown | Author / Journalist |
Authored a 3-part investigative report in the Miami Herald about Mr. Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
| Individual I | Potential co-conspirator |
Received $100,000 from Mr. Epstein via a company they founded and ran. Described as a potential co-conspirator for wh...
|
| Individual II | Potential co-conspirator / Employee |
Received $250,000 from Mr. Epstein. Described as a potential co-conspirator and an employee who allegedly facilitated...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case against Mr. Epstein, contending that he made payments to influence witnesses.
|
| Miami Herald | company |
A newspaper that published an investigative report about Mr. Epstein, authored by Julie K. Brown.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2018-11-28
Publication of a 3-part investigative report in the Miami Herald by Julie K. Brown regarding Mr. Epstein's NPA.
2018-12-03
Mr. Epstein made payments totaling $350,000 to Individual I and Individual II very soon after the Miami Herald report was published.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Mr. Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and one of his residences.
|
|
|
Location of one of Mr. Epstein's residences where sexual encounters with victims were allegedly scheduled.
|
|
|
Location of one of Mr. Epstein's residences where sexual encounters with victims were allegedly scheduled.
|
Relationships (2)
Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to a company run by Individual I and obtained protection for them in his Non-Prosecution Agreement. The government identifies them as a 'potential co-conspirator'.
Individual II is described as one of Epstein's employees who facilitated the trafficking of minors. Epstein paid them $250,000 and obtained protection for them in his Non-Prosecution Agreement. The government identifies them as a 'potential co-conspirator'.
Key Quotes (4)
"attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process"Source
— Mr. Epstein's counsel (describing Epstein's actions)
(A proposal for what Mr. Epstein would admit to regarding his harassment of victims in a civil action.)
DOJ-OGR-00000800.jpg
Quote #1
"a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection in [] the NPA."Source
— The Government
(Description of both Individual I and Individual II.)
DOJ-OGR-00000800.jpg
Quote #2
"one of the employees identified in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant’s trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida."Source
— The Government
(Describing the alleged role and actions of Individual II.)
DOJ-OGR-00000800.jpg
Quote #3
"influence [these two] individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this case and who might be witnesses against him at a trial."Source
— The Government
(The Government's inference as to why Mr. Epstein paid Individual I and Individual II.)
DOJ-OGR-00000800.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,014 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 17 of 33
19, 2007, Mr. Epstein’s counsel proposed that Mr. Epstein admit that he verbally harassed victims or the family of victims in connection with his “attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process” in a civil action against Mr. Epstein, in violation of a Federal witness tampering statute. Doe, Dkt. 361-9.
And, the Government has recently contended that, on November 28, 2018 and on December 3, 2018 – very soon after the publication of a 3-part investigative report in the Miami Herald (authored by Julie K. Brown) relating to Mr. Epstein’s Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement, dated September 24, 2007 – Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to “a company founded and run by [Individual I],” and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at 1. The Government states that Individual I was “a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection in [] the NPA.” Id. Individual I was named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald. See, e.g., Julie K. Brown, “Even From Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated The System. His Victims Were Kept in The Dark, Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.
The Government states that Individual II was also “a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein also obtained protection in [] the NPA.” Dkt. 23 at 2. She is “one of the employees identified in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant’s trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida.” Id. at 2. Individual II was also named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald report.
The Government states there is good reason to infer that Mr. Epstein was attempting to “influence [these two] individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this case and who might be witnesses against him at a trial.” Dkt. 11 at 11. “Neither of these
17
DOJ-OGR-00000800
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document