the department
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
sexual offender
|
Regulatory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Governmental duty |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
sheriff's office
|
Reporting requirement |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Supervisory Staff Attorney (BOP/MCC)
|
Oversight investigation |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-06-01 | N/A | Department's review of the Epstein case, initiated by defense attorneys, focusing on federal juri... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal appeal | The Defense presses its appeal to the Department to undo the NPA, while the FBI and USAO continue... | N/A | View |
| 2005-01-01 | Policy issuance | The Department of Justice issued the 2005 Guidelines to implement the CVRA. | N/A | View |
EFTA00036697.pdf
This document contains a chain of emails between Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and likely DOJ officials dated August 13-14, 2019, days after Jeffrey Epstein's death. The correspondence details a list of 10 specific questions regarding staffing levels, overtime (OT), and 'augmentation' (using non-custody staff for custody roles) at MCC New York. Crucially, Question 5 asks specifically for the intended vs. actual staff count for the night shift of August 9th into the morning of August 10th (the time of death). The document also provides statistical data on overtime usage for the week leading up to the death.
EFTA00036644.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 11-12, 2019, immediately following Jeffrey Epstein's death, discussing the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) protocols for suicide watch. The emails seek to provide a justification to 'the Department' (likely DOJ) for why inmates are not kept on long-term suicide watch, citing the highly restrictive nature of the intervention (constant observation, lights on 24/7, no personal property) as being inconsistent with long-term quality of life. The text explains that suicide watch is a short-term crisis intervention intended to end once an immediate threat is no longer assessed.
EFTA00036626.pdf
This document is an email chain between BOP/DOJ officials dated August 13-14, 2019, immediately following Jeffrey Epstein's death. It contains a list of 10 specific questions regarding staffing levels, overtime procedures, and inmate counts at MCC New York. The email specifically asks for the difference between the 'supposed' and 'actual' staff counts for the night shift of August 9th and the overnight shift of August 10th (the time of death). Detailed statistics are provided for overtime and augmentation usage at MCC New York for the week of August 4-10, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00000421.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A defense attorney argues that the current indictment is an illegitimate 'do-over' of a previous investigation conducted in Florida regarding allegations from 2002-2005, which had been resolved via a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The speaker contends that revisiting these facts undermines the integrity of plea deals with the United States and begins to argue the definition of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00030383.jpg
This document appears to be page 30 of 114 from a Public Records Request (No. 17-295) dated July 26, 2017. The text outlines legal statutes (likely Florida law given the specific statute numbers) regarding the penalties for failing to provide information (specifically instant message names) and the requirement for the sheriff's office to update sexual offender information within two working days.
DOJ-OGR-00030382.jpg
This page contains excerpted text from legal statutes (specifically Florida Statutes sections 794 and 800) regarding the definition of sexual offenses and the strict registration requirements for sexual offenders. It details the obligation to report personal data, including physical addresses, email addresses, instant message names, vehicle/vessel details, and higher education enrollment to the Sheriff's office or relevant department. The document was produced as part of a DOJ Public Records Request on July 26, 2017.
DOJ-OGR-00030380.jpg
This legal document details the specific criteria and judicial process for a sexual offender to petition for removal from a lifetime registration requirement. It stipulates conditions such as a 25-year period without arrest post-release for certain offenses and compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act. The procedure involves petitioning a circuit court, notifying the state attorney who may oppose the request, and ultimately providing a certified court order to the registering department to have the classification removed.
DOJ-OGR-00030375.jpg
This document is a page from a legal statute, specifically ¹943.0435, defining the term "Sexual offender." It outlines four main criteria for this classification, which involve convictions for a list of specific statutes, release from sanctions after October 1, 1997, residency status combined with out-of-state predator designations, or juvenile delinquency adjudications after July 1, 2007. The definition is comprehensive, covering various scenarios and legal statuses to determine who is required to register with the department.
DOJ-OGR-00030364.jpg
This legal document, dated July 26, 2017, outlines the registration and reporting requirements for sexual offenders. It details the conditions for lifetime registration, the legislature's justification for public disclosure based on public safety, and establishes that assisting a non-compliant offender is a third-degree felony. The document also specifies that offenders must report in person to their local sheriff's office twice a year.
DOJ-OGR-00030362.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal report detailing the registration and reporting requirements for sexual offenders in Florida, particularly concerning changes in residence to other states or jurisdictions. It outlines penalties for non-compliance, including felony charges, and provides civil liability immunity for government agencies and personnel acting in good faith when handling and releasing this information.
DOJ-OGR-00021488.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the government's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically regarding the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while the failure to notify victims about the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct (citing strategic concerns about impeachment evidence), the lack of transparency and inconsistent messaging mistreated victims and damaged public confidence. The report states that victims were not treated with the sensitivity expected by the Department of Justice, leading to perceptions of collusion between the government and Epstein's counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00021458.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation concludes that prosecutors in the Epstein case did not commit professional misconduct by failing to notify victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The OPR's reasoning is that in 2007, when the non-prosecution agreement was signed, the Department of Justice's interpretation was that CVRA rights only attached after federal charges were filed, a standard which was not met. Although finding no misconduct, the report notes that the lack of consultation with victims reflected poorly on the Department and contradicted its mission.
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
This legal document details a factual dispute investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the Epstein case. Prosecutor Villafaña claimed her supervisors—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—instructed her not to consult with victims about plea negotiations, an instruction they all deny recalling. The document outlines the conflicting testimonies and notes that while OPR could not definitively resolve the disagreement, it found no documentary evidence to support Villafaña's claim of a specific meeting or instruction on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021358.jpg
This legal document details a series of meetings and communications in 2007 between federal prosecutors (USAO) and Jeffrey Epstein's defense team regarding a potential prosecution. It outlines the strategic maneuvering on both sides, including the defense's presentation of legal arguments and the prosecutors' internal deliberations, led by figures like Acosta and Lourie, on charging strategy and a potential non-prosecution agreement. The document highlights key meetings in June and September 2007 where the parties exchanged information and argued their positions.
DOJ-OGR-00021306.jpg
This legal document details a March 12, 2008 meeting where Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including Ken Starr, presented their case to officials from the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). Following the meeting, the defense team submitted written complaints about the U.S. Attorney's Office's conduct, alleging improper coordination with state authorities and conflicts of interest. Footnotes reveal communications indicating the defense team actively tried to block communication between federal and state prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00021218.jpg
This document details the initiation of the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in May 2006. AUSA Villafaña opened the case, named "Operation Leap Year," due to federal interests and concerns of improper political influence on the state investigation. On July 14, 2006, Villafaña briefed her superiors, U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Criminal Division Chief Jeffrey Sloman, to ensure their support for the high-profile and contentious case.
DOJ-OGR-00021202.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing, outlines the organizational structure of federal law enforcement in the Southern District of Florida during a specific period. It identifies key leadership at the Department of Justice, including Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and details the jurisdiction, staffing, and office locations of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the region. The text also notes that the FBI's West Palm Beach office handled the 'Epstein investigation'.
DOJ-OGR-00003262.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal conflicts within the USAO in August 2007 regarding the Epstein investigation. Prosecutor Marie Villafaña urged for continued investigation, specifically a trip to New York to interview employees and efforts to seize Epstein's computers, citing a recent interview with a victim recruited at age 14. However, US Attorney Alexander Acosta prioritized maintaining control of the case over DOJ intervention, leading to delays in investigative steps and a stay in litigation to accommodate meetings with Epstein's defense team.
DOJ-OGR-00004610.jpg
This document is a page from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, filed on May 25, 2021, analyzing the government's handling of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while the decision to delay notifying victims about the NPA in 2008 was not professional misconduct, the government's lack of transparency and poor communication led victims to feel ignored and ill-treated. This conduct created a public misimpression of collusion with Epstein's counsel and undermined confidence in the agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017623.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal text (likely a law journal article from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted as evidence in a House Oversight investigation, bearing the footer 'DAVID SCHOEN'. The text heavily critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the OLC's 'contorted position' that victim rights only attach after formal charges are filed. It argues that this interpretation renders the statutory words 'detection' and 'investigation' meaningless and conflicts with standard definitions of when a prosecution begins.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity