state authorities
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 | Investigation | Mr. Epstein's house was searched, giving him notice that state authorities were conducting an inv... | His house | View |
EFTA00013606.pdf
This is an urgent internal email dated July 3, 2007, likely between federal prosecutors. The sender discusses communications with attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Key points include a request to delay financial subpoenas in exchange for immediate access to computer equipment removed from Epstein's home before a state search warrant was executed. The sender also mentions opening discussions for a resolution to the federal investigation that might include 'concurrent time' (serving federal and state sentences simultaneously).
DOJ-OGR-00000546.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, where attorney Mr. Weinberg is defending his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg argues that Epstein is not an out-of-control offender or a flight risk, citing previous intensive investigations by state and federal authorities in 2005 and 2006 and the high level of publicity as reasons why any misconduct would already be known. The judge questions the basis of Weinberg's claims about his client's character.
DOJ-OGR-00000530.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, in the case of USA v. Epstein (1:19-cr-00490). Prosecutor Rossmiller describes search warrant materials containing numerous photos of nude women and young girls, noting that one individual in the photos has self-identified as a victim. The discussion also covers the defendant's sex offender registration in New York, confirming he is classified at the 'highest status of risk for re-offense.'
DOJ-OGR-00021486.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report evaluating U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's conduct regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The OPR concludes that while Acosta did not commit professional misconduct or act on corruption, his decision to resolve the investigation via a state-based plea constituted 'poor judgment' and relied on a 'flawed mechanism.' The report notes Acosta failed to consider the difficulties of relying on state officials and agreed to 'unusual and problematic terms' in the NPA.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity