Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Report: 293-1
The report investigates allegations that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida improperly resolved a federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct by negotiating a non-prosecution agreement. The report details the investigation, the NPA, and the interactions with victims, including the subsequent CVRA petition filed by Jane Doe.
Summary
The report investigates allegations that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida improperly resolved a federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct by negotiating a non-prosecution agreement. The report details the investigation, the NPA, and the interactions with victims, including the subsequent CVRA petition filed by Jane Doe.
This document is from the epstein-docs Archive.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (3)
Related Documents (6)
Memorandum
Memorandum Subject Re: Operation Leap Year Date May 1, 2007 (Revised 9/13/07) (2nd Revision 2/19/08)' To From R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment char in Jeffrey Epstein, Min a/k/a' JEGE Inc., and Hyperion Air, Inc. The proposed indictment contains 60 counts and seeks the forfeiture of Epstein's Palm Beach home and two airplanes? The FBI has information regarding Epstein's whereabouts on May 16th and May 19th and they would like to arrest him on one of those dates. Epstein is considered an extremely high flight risk' and, from information we have received, a continued danger 'The second revision amends the Jane Doe numbering system to correspond with the most recent indictment. It also removes the references to the overt acts and substantive allegations related to each
Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires
The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida VIA FACSIMILE Michael R. Tein, Esq. Lewis Tein, P.L. 3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Tein: 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (56!) 820-8711 Facsimile: (561) 820-8777 July 17, 2008 The Office has reviewed your "Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action," and we feel that it misrepresents the posture of the federal investigation. For example, you cite to In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103 (WPB), as evidence that the federal criminal action remains pending. That is a citation to Mr. Epstein's Motion to Quash a subpoena for computer equipment removed from Mr. Epstein's home after he and his attorneys were aware of the existence of the state investigation. Pursuant to the Non- Prosecution Agreement, that motion was supposed to have been withdrawn several months ago, and, therefore, is not "pending" in
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO VICTIMS' MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement, and states: I. THE MOTION TO UNSEAL SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN FILED UNDER SEAL IN THIS COURT. Petitioners have filed their motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement, claiming that no good cause exists for sealing it. As an initial matter, the motion should be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United States, either under seal or otherwise. On August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic hearing to discuss petitioners' r
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.