disinfozone/The_Info_Web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

vault backup: 2026-09-25 20:44:34

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
disinfo.zone 2026-09-25 20:44:34 -04:00
parent 6a6e61a37c
commit b208eb6051
No known key found for this signature in database
124 changed files with 8803 additions and 839 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

185
40 - EVENTS/Epstein non-prosecution agreement.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
---
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
tags:
- Event
- JeffreyEpstein
- NonProsecutionAgreement
- CrimeVictimsRightsAct
- DepartmentOfJustice
- PalmBeach
- PleaDeal
- Immunity
alias:
- non-prosecution agreement
- Non-Prosecution Agreement
- Non-prosecution agreement
- NPA
- Epstein NPA
- 2007 non-prosecution agreement
- 2008 non-prosecution agreement
- Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement
summary: "The September 24, 2007 agreement in which federal prosecutors in Miami dropped a drafted indictment of Jeffrey Epstein and immunized his co-conspirators in exchange for two state guilty pleas."
start: 2007-09-24
end: 2019-09-16
location: "Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida"
relations:
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Alexander Acosta]]"
reverse: true
role: "U.S. Attorney who approved the agreement"
start: 2007-09-24
fn: 2
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Jeffrey Epstein]]"
reverse: true
role: "signatory"
start: 2007-09-24
fn: 1
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Jay Lefkowitz]]"
reverse: true
role: "defense negotiator"
start: 2007-09
end: 2008-08
fn: 1
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Ann Marie Villafana]]"
reverse: true
role: "line prosecutor"
start: 2007-09
end: 2008-09
fn: 1
- type: subject_of
with: "[[Doe v. United States]]"
start: 2008-07-07
end: 2019-09-16
fn: 1
- type: investigated
with: "[[Office of Professional Responsibility]]"
reverse: true
start: 2019-02-06
end: 2020-11
fn: 2
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Kenneth Starr]]"
reverse: true
role: "defense counsel"
start: 2007-09
end: 2008-06
fn: 4
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Jeffrey Sloman]]"
reverse: true
role: "First Assistant U.S. Attorney"
start: 2007-09
end: 2009-12
fn: 11
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Barry Krischer]]"
reverse: true
role: "State Attorney whose office took the plea"
start: 2007-09
end: 2008-06-30
fn: 5
created: 2026-09-25
updated: 2026-09-25
---
The Epstein non-prosecution agreement was a contract executed on September 24, 2007 between [[Jeffrey Epstein]] and the United States Attorney's Office for the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida|Southern District of Florida]], then headed by [[Alexander Acosta]]. In it the office agreed to end its federal investigation of Epstein and not to charge him, four named assistants, or "any potential co-conspirators" in exchange for his guilty plea to two [[Florida]] state prostitution offenses, a recommended 18-month county jail term, sex offender registration, and a mechanism for paying civil damages to identified victims. The office had by then drafted a 53-page federal indictment. The agreement was concealed from the victims for roughly ten months, and in February 2019 Judge [[Kenneth Marra]] held that its concealment violated the [[Crime Victims' Rights Act]].[^1][^2]
### The Case Before the Agreement
The [[Palm Beach Police Department]] opened its investigation in March 2005 after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage at [[358 El Brillo Way]]. Detective [[Joseph Recarey]] swore a probable cause affidavit on May 1, 2006 recommending four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor and one count of lewd and lascivious molestation, all second-degree felonies. State Attorney [[Barry Krischer]] instead took the case to a [[Palm Beach County]] grand jury, which on July 19, 2006 returned a single count of felony solicitation of prostitution. Police Chief [[Michael Reiter]] and Recarey, dissatisfied with the state handling, referred the matter to the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] in [[West Palm Beach, Florida|West Palm Beach]].[^2][^3]
The FBI brought the case to Assistant U.S. Attorney [[Ann Marie Villafana|A. Marie Villafaña]]. By May 2007 she had written an 82-page prosecution memorandum and a draft indictment that the court record describes as 53 pages and the Justice Department describes as containing 60 counts. Beginning in January 2007 Epstein's lawyers met and corresponded with the office; on February 1, 2007 they delivered a 24-page letter and on July 6, 2007 a 23-page letter arguing that no federal crime had been committed. At a July 31, 2007 meeting the office offered to end its investigation if Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, served a minimum of two years, registered as a sex offender, and agreed to a damages mechanism for victims.[^1][^2]
### Negotiating the Terms
The final terms were worked out in September 2007 in email between Villafaña and Epstein's counsel, principally [[Jay Lefkowitz]] of [[Kirkland & Ellis]]. On September 12 the office noted that it had "no evidence of any assaults occurring either on Mr. [[Lolita Express|Epstein's plane]] or offshore from his residence" while it looked for a federal charge to which Epstein could plead. On September 13 Villafaña wrote that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18 looking for misdemeanors," and defense counsel answered that he was "[a]lready thinking about the same statutes." Drafts under discussion would have had Epstein plead to assaulting one of his own assistants, a proposal that drew "negative reaction" inside the office because that assistant was "considered one of the main perpetrators."[^1]
On September 16 the prosecutor proposed filing a charge in Miami rather than West Palm Beach "[o]n an 'avoid the press' note," and relayed advice from the office's West Palm Beach manager, [[Andrew Lourie]]: "Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison purposes." She added that she "would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge," and offered to meet defense counsel "off campus." The same day the defense sent a draft extending federal immunity to co-conspirators. On September 17 she asked Lefkowitz to send material to her home email address and call her cell phone.[^1]
On September 18 the office assured the defense that "[a] non-prosecution agreement would not be made public or filed with the Court." On September 21 Krischer wrote to Villafaña about the proposed agreement: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation." On September 24, as the agreement was being executed, Lefkowitz wrote: "Please do whatever you can to keep this from becoming public."[^1]
The office's own 51-page "Epstein Investigation Timeline," marked privileged and as containing grand jury material and stamped Exhibit A-1, logs the same weeks from the prosecution side. In September 2007 Acosta, [[Drew Oosterbaan]], Sloman, Villafaña and John McMillan met [[Kenneth Starr]], Lefkowitz and [[Lilly Ann Sanchez]]. A September 11 revision had Epstein plead to three specified charges with a 30-month sentence, split between 20 months in jail and 10 in community control, and agree that the girls were victims for purposes of damages. On September 13 Lefkowitz answered Villafaña's statement that the office was satisfied in principle but uncomfortable with the recommended federal charge on jurisdictional grounds, and the same day he proposed misdemeanor statutes. Krischer, [[Lanna Belohlavek]] and the federal prosecutors exchanged emails on a joint meeting with Epstein's counsel from September 19 to 25. On September 20 an internal email reported that Lefkowitz wanted to remove the registration requirement, and on September 21 Villafaña summarized the State Attorney's negotiations with [[Jack Goldberger]], including Goldberger's request that Epstein not have to register as a sex offender. On September 23 Lefkowitz wrote that the defense had based its agreement to plead to Florida Statute 796.03 on a "mistaken assumption" and asked again that Epstein not have to register; Acosta told him to deal directly with Andrew Lourie and Villafaña, and the agreement was signed the next day.[^4][^5]
On November 29, 2007 Sloman forwarded an exchange with Lourie recording that the defense "originally agreed to plead to the state felony that they thought was unregisterable (but did not tell us knowing we thought it was), but then discovered they were wrong and tried to get out of it. They tried several times to knock down the jail time after agreeing to the time." On December 17 Starr and Lefkowitz sent Acosta a 110-page letter arguing, among other points, the State Attorney's Office's belief that Epstein should not have to register. According to the chronology, in early January 2008 Lefkowitz admitted to Acosta in a telephone call that he had never intended Epstein to plead guilty to an offense requiring sex offender registration.[^4]
### The Terms
The agreement required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the pending solicitation indictment and to a new information charging procurement of minors for prostitution under Florida Statute 796.03, an offense requiring sex offender registration, and to make a binding joint recommendation of 18 months in county jail followed by 12 months of community control. In exchange the office agreed not to prosecute him in the Southern District of Florida.[^2]
The immunity clause read: "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [[Sarah Kellen]], [[Adriana Ross]], [[Lesley Groff]], or [[Nadia Marcinkova]]." A confidentiality clause provided that "[t]he parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record," and that if the government received a [[Freedom of Information Act]] request or compulsory process for the agreement, "it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure."[^1]
The victim provisions let the government, "in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel," select an attorney representative for the victims, "paid for by Epstein." Epstein would not contest liability in suits brought under 18 U.S.C. 2255 by victims who agreed to proceed exclusively under that statute and to "waive any other claim for damages." The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]] later described the arrangement as "[a]n odd set-up, and one that, it seems to us, was likely calculated to quickly and quietly resolve as many victim suits as possible." The victims' attorney [[Jeffrey Herman]] objected in September 2008 that the waiver language did not tell victims it could extinguish punitive damages claims "against an alleged billionaire."[^1][^6]
### Keeping the Victims Out
The office never told the victims before signing that an agreement was under consideration. After signing, Villafaña reported to Lefkowitz that she had forwarded his message "only to [United States Attorney] Alex, Andy, and Roland," and that a colleague named Rolando, who was calling Chief Reiter, "knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to," and was "telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone." Stipulated facts in the later litigation state that it was "a deviation from the Government's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications."[^1]
On October 10, 2007 Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta that "[n]either federal agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the identified individuals." Acosta then met Lefkowitz for breakfast; Lefkowitz's follow-up letter thanked him "for the commitment you made to me during our October 12 meeting in which you . . . assured me that your Office would not . . . contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants." The breakfast took place eighteen days after the signing; the [[Office of Professional Responsibility]] found no evidence that it "led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier, or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein."[^1][^2]
When First Assistant U.S. Attorney [[Jeffrey Sloman]] moved in late November 2007 to notify victims under the Justice for All Act of 2004, Lefkowitz objected that victims should not be invited to the state sentencing or "encouraged to contact law enforcement officials." On November 30 Acosta wrote to defense counsel Kenneth Starr: "I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client." Starr answered on December 5 that it was "wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances." On December 7 defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez asked the office to "hold off on sending any victim notification letters," and none were sent that month. On December 19 Acosta wrote that the office would "defer to the discretion of the State Attorney" on notice of the state proceedings.[^1]
On January 10, 2008 the FBI sent victims letters stating that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Another victim received the same language on May 30, 2008. In mid-June 2008 the victims' attorney [[Bradley Edwards]] asked to meet with Villafaña and was, in the stipulated wording, "led to believe federal charges could still be filed, with no mention whatsoever of the existence of the NPA."[^1]
### Appeal to Main Justice and the Plea
For nine months after signing, Epstein's lawyers sought to renegotiate the agreement and to have it set aside by senior [[Department of Justice]] officials, arguing that the case was "a quintessentially state matter." Acosta later wrote that the team, which included [[Alan Dershowitz]], Starr, and [[Roy Black]], waged "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors," that "[d]efense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families," that one lawyer warned him that "the office's excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued," and that the lawyers would "obtain concessions as part of a negotiation and agree to proceed, only to change their minds, and appeal the office's position to Washington." The Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the case; on June 23, 2008 the Deputy Attorney General's office declined to intervene and gave Epstein until June 30 to comply.[^1][^2][^7]
On June 30, 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty in Palm Beach County court and was sentenced to 12 months on the solicitation count and 6 months on the procurement count, consecutive, followed by 12 months of community control. The same day the office told defense counsel that "the FBI and our office are declining comment if asked" about the agreement, and a copy was filed under seal with the state court.[^1][^2]
### Work Release and the Florida Science Foundation
Epstein served his sentence in the custody of the [[Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office]] under Sheriff [[Ric Bradshaw]]. The sheriff approved his application for work release, and from October 2008 he spent 12 hours a day "purportedly working at the '[[Florida Science Foundation]],' an entity Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of Epstein's attorneys." Records obtained by the West Palm Beach station WPTV show that the foundation paid the sheriff's office 128,136 dollars during his incarceration; the money was reported to have paid off-duty deputies assigned to him while he was at the foundation. He received gain time, served less than 13 months, and was released to home detention on July 22, 2009. A state judge ordered the sealed copy of the agreement made public in September 2009.[^2][^8]
In August 2019, after a letter from Bradshaw, Governor [[Ron DeSantis]] ordered the [[Florida Department of Law Enforcement]] to investigate; its May 2021 reports found that Epstein "received differential treatment" in the sheriff's custody, that the off-duty deputies had been hired mainly for his protection rather than to monitor him, and that there was no evidence of bribery or influence or of any crime by sheriff's or prosecutors' staff.[^9]
### Performance and Breach
The prosecution team kept preparing a federal case after the signing. On February 14, 2008 Villafaña wrote to the FBI case agents that she had not yet sent the indictment and "was just asking for input on who to include and who to exclude." After the Justice Department's Criminal Division rejected Epstein's appeal in May 2008, she asked to indict, and Sloman and Acosta advised that Epstein would be given the chance to perform. On May 16, 2008 Sloman wrote to her, "We got approved," explaining: "Alex called to tell me. He said the ltr needs to be tweaked which we'll do on Monday. I wouldn't call the FBI yet." In June 2008 she summarized a meeting with Krischer about Epstein's attempt to negotiate a new state plea, and the office discussed a call from Roy Black about allowing Epstein to accept a state plea to 60 days' imprisonment. At the time of the plea Villafaña recorded Goldberger's statement that Epstein would serve his sentence in confinement "24-hours-a-day."[^4][^10][^11]
Federal prosecutors had researched the sheriff's work-release rules from November 2007, and in July 2008 Villafaña corresponded with "Col. M. Gauger" of the sheriff's office about Epstein's work release. On November 20, 2008, after learning that Epstein was on work release, she asked to indict him. On December 3, 2008 she wrote to her supervisors that "since Day 1, Goldberger and Krisher [sic] . . . have been scheming to get Epstein out on work release," and that Epstein had hired off-duty deputies for "protection," "paying between $3000 and $4100 per week for this service, despite the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office (and the Sheriff's Office itself) from having 'any business transactions with inmates.'" On December 11 she wrote to the sheriff's Corrections Division that Epstein was ineligible and that his application listed, as the Florida Science Foundation's telephone number, the number of Goldberger's law firm; "the Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor responded." In March 2009 Sloman assured Alan Dershowitz that his office "will not interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the sentence imposed by the Court," while adding that it would object to alternative custody or home detention if asked. The sheriff's Extra Duty Permits System carried the deputies' detail as Permit No. 7804, "FL Science Foundation - Plain Clothed Position," and July 2009 overtime reports describe the work as "Provide security for Jeffrey Epstein," including midday escorts to 358 El Brillo Way.[^4][^12][^13]
On June 9, 2009 Villafaña sent Sloman, Criminal Division chief Robert Senior, Rolando Garcia and Karen Atkinson a memorandum titled "Operation Leap Year: Request to Provide Notification of Breach," and an indictment package was signed that day for presentation on June 16; on June 12 she wrote to Goldberger about a violation of the agreement, and on June 15 she wrote to Lefkowitz, Black and Goldberger on the history of Epstein's performance under it. No indictment was returned. In August 2009 Epstein was stopped walking on the beach during home detention and said he was walking "to work"; in September 2009 Black asked to transfer his supervision to the [[U.S. Virgin Islands]], and the office answered that it would treat the request as a violation of the agreement. Epstein completed his sentence on July 21, 2010, and an administrative order closed the federal case on September 8, 2010. In December 2010 a correspondent wrote to Epstein that "krischer spoke to the governor before he left for Korea" and that a New York defense lawyer Krischer had lunched with might help "with the registration stuff." The whole Southern District of Florida office was formally recused from the matter in July and August 2011.[^4][^12][^14]
### The Crime Victims' Rights Act Litigation
On July 7, 2008 a victim filed an emergency petition as "Jane Doe" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, opening [[Doe v. United States]], No. 9:08-cv-80736, before Judge Marra. Her attorney saw the first reference to the agreement on July 9, 2008, in the government's response. The court ordered the agreement produced to the petitioners under a protective order in August 2008, and the case went dormant from late 2008 to 2010 while the petitioners pursued civil claims against Epstein.[^1][^2]
On February 21, 2019 Marra granted partial summary judgment for the petitioners. He wrote that "[p]articularly problematic was the Government's decision to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility," and that it "was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute." He also stated that "[t]he Court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper." After this ruling the Justice Department recused the Southern District of Florida from the litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to defend it.[^1][^2]
Epstein was arrested in New York on July 6, 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and died in custody on August 10, 2019. On September 16, 2019 Marra denied the victims' requested remedies, including rescission of the agreement, and closed the case, writing that he had "no jurisdiction over Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney, who is now a private citizen," and that "despite Petitioners having demonstrated the Government violated their rights under the CVRA, in the end they are not receiving much, if any, of the relief they sought."[^15]
On April 15, 2021 the en banc Eleventh Circuit denied [[Courtney Wild]]'s mandamus petition, holding that the Act does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement in a freestanding civil action before charges are filed, and expressly declining to decide whether the rights attach before charges. The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] denied certiorari on February 22, 2022.[^6][^16]
### The Office of Professional Responsibility Review
The Office of Professional Responsibility opened its review on February 6, 2019 after a December 3, 2018 letter from Senator [[Ben Sasse]] citing the [[Miami Herald]] series by [[Julie K. Brown]]. Its November 2020 report found no professional misconduct by Acosta or four subordinates but concluded that the agreement "was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest," that Acosta's decision "constitutes poor judgment," and that the government's "lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages" gave the public "the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret from the victims." OPR found no evidence of corruption or of a decision "based on . . . Epstein's wealth, status, or associations." It noted that the three supervisory subjects other than Acosta had "left the USAO, were transitioning to other jobs, or were absent at critical junctures." It recorded that in December 2010 a victims' attorney had alleged improper influence over the investigation and that OPR had declined to open an inquiry at that time in deference to the pending litigation. It stated that it had no jurisdiction over state officials and reached no conclusions about their conduct.[^2]
Before the report was final, the chief of the Public Corruption Unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the [[Southern District of New York]] reviewed the draft and on August 21, 2020 asked for two wording changes, which OPR accepted: "at least one victim known to be a minor" became "at least one victim believed to be a minor," described as "more accurately reflect[ing] our position in the bail arguments regarding Epstein," and a statement that investigators "were aware" Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence became that they "had learned" it.[^17]
### Later Use of the Immunity Clause
The co-conspirator clause became the central defense argument of [[Ghislaine Maxwell]], who contended that it barred her 2020 prosecution in New York. The [[Second Circuit]] rejected the argument, holding that the agreement bound only the Southern District of Florida, and the Supreme Court denied her petition for certiorari in October 2025.[^18]
### Footnotes
[^1]: Opinion and Order, *Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019), ECF No. 435 (Marra, J.), reported at 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, quoting the government's response to the petitioners' statement of undisputed material facts (ECF No. 407) at paragraphs 9-12, 17-37, 40-41, 43-55, 61-63, 79-90, 92-93, 99, 101, 105, 111-112, 126, 152, and the agreement itself (ECF No. 361-62). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.435.0.pdf ; docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4502088/doe-v-united-states/
[^2]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, "Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation," Executive Summary, November 2020, pp. i-xi. https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1336471/dl
[^3]: Palm Beach Police Department, probable cause affidavit of Detective Joseph Recarey regarding Jeffrey Epstein, sworn May 1, 2006 (redacted). https://archive.org/stream/JeffreyEpstein/Jeffrey%20Epstein%20Redacted%20Probable%20Cause%20Affadavit_djvu.txt
[^4]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00224943, DataSet 9, "Epstein Investigation Timeline," Exhibit A-1, privileged chronology of the federal investigation, May 2006 to August 2011, pp. 12 to 14, 19 to 20, 23 to 29, 34 to 38, 45 to 51. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00224943.pdf
[^5]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00215188, DataSet 9, emails among Barry Krischer, Lanna Belohlavek and the U.S. Attorney's Office, "RE: Meeting with Epstein's attorneys," September 19 to 25, 2007. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00215188.pdf
[^6]: *In re Wild*, No. 19-13843, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2021) (en banc), opinion of Newsom, J., at 2-6, 13. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.enb.pdf
[^7]: Conchita Sarnoff and Lee Aitken, "Jeffrey Epstein: How the Hedge Fund Mogul Pedophile Got Off Easy," *The Daily Beast,* March 25, 2011, quoting R. Alexander Acosta's 2011 letter on the negotiations. https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-hedge-fund-mogul-pedophile-got-off-easy/
[^8]: "Jeffrey Epstein paid Palm Beach Sheriff's Office $128,000 during incarceration for prostitution charges," *WPTV,* 2019. https://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/new-jeffrey-epstein-paid-palm-beach-sheriffs-office-128-000-during-incarceration-for-prostitution
[^9]: "Florida authorities find no evidence of criminal activity in state's handling of Jeffrey Epstein case," *NBC News,* May 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-authorities-no-evidence-criminal-activity-state-s-handling-jeffrey-n1266888
[^10]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00225102, DataSet 9, emails, Ann Marie Villafana to FBI agents, "RE: Epstein Indictment" and "RE: DOBs," February 14, 2008. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00225102.pdf
[^11]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00214486, DataSet 9, email chain, Jeff Sloman and Ann Marie Villafana, "Re: Did u hear?," May 16, 2008. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00214486.pdf
[^12]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02847284, Prior DOJ Disclosures, Office of Professional Responsibility report on the Southern District of Florida's resolution of the Epstein investigation, November 2020, pp. 116 to 118. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Prior%20DOJ%20Disclosures/Memos.%20&%20Correspondence/EFTA02847284.pdf
[^13]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA01308629, DataSet 10, Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Extra Duty Permits System overtime report forms, Permit No. 7804, "Florida Science Foundation," July 1 to 14, 2009, faxed July 21, 2009. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01308629.pdf
[^14]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA01830557, DataSet 10, email, "jagesq" to Jeffrey Epstein, "krischer richardson," December 15, 2010. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01830557.pdf
[^15]: Opinion and Order, *Doe v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2019), ECF No. 478 (Marra, J.). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80736/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80736-2.pdf
[^16]: Supreme Court of the United States, docket No. 21-351 (petition of Courtney Wild), order of February 22, 2022 denying certiorari. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-351.html ; "Supreme Court Turns Away Jeffrey Epstein Victim's Petition on Dead Predator's Infamous Non-Prosecution Agreement," *Law & Crime,* February 22, 2022. https://lawandcrime.com/jeffrey-epstein-2/supreme-court-turns-away-jeffrey-epstein-victims-petition-on-dead-predators-infamous-non-prosecution-agreement/
[^17]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA00077309, DataSet 9, email, Chief, Public Corruption Unit, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Office of Professional Responsibility, "RE: Draft OPR Report," August 21, 2020. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00077309.pdf
[^18]: *United States v. Maxwell*, No. 22-1426 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2024); "Ghislaine Maxwell loses sex trafficking appeal," *BBC,* September 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0glxd0gxko ; "Supreme Court declines to hear Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal," *SCOTUSblog,* October 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-ghislaine-maxwells-appeal/

133
40 - EVENTS/Giuffre v. Maxwell.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
---
category: "Law Enforcement & Legal"
tags:
- Event
- FederalCase
- Defamation
- JeffreyEpstein
- GhislaineMaxwell
- VirginiaGiuffre
- Unsealing
- EpsteinFilesTransparencyAct
- SouthernDistrictOfNewYork
alias:
- Giuffre v Maxwell
- Giuffre v. Maxwell (2015)
- Brown v. Maxwell
- Blatchford v. Maxwell
summary: "Virginia Giuffre's 2015 defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, settled in 2017, whose sealed discovery record was litigated for a decade and reached by a 2019 grand jury subpoena."
start: 2015-09-21
location: "New York, New York"
relations:
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Virginia Giuffre]]"
reverse: true
role: "plaintiff"
start: 2015-09-21
end: 2025-04-25
fn: 1
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Ghislaine Maxwell]]"
reverse: true
role: "defendant"
start: 2015-09-21
fn: 1
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Robert W. Sweet]]"
reverse: true
role: "presiding judge"
start: 2015-09-21
fn: 1
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Loretta Preska]]"
reverse: true
role: "presiding judge after reassignment"
fn: 8
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Miami Herald]]"
reverse: true
role: "intervenor seeking unsealing"
start: 2018-04-06
fn: 2
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Julie K. Brown]]"
reverse: true
role: "intervenor seeking unsealing"
start: 2018-04-06
fn: 2
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Alan Dershowitz]]"
reverse: true
role: "intervenor"
start: 2016-08-11
fn: 2
- type: participant_in
with: "[[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York]]"
reverse: true
role: "movant for disclosure under the Epstein Files Transparency Act"
start: 2026-01-30
end: 2026-08-11
fn: 3
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Ian Torrington Blatchford]]"
reverse: true
role: "substituted plaintiff, interim administrator of Giuffre's estate"
start: 2026-09-03
fn: 11
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Johanna Sjoberg]]"
reverse: true
role: "deponent"
start: 2016
fn: 4
created: 2026-09-25
updated: 2026-09-25
---
Giuffre v. Maxwell (No. 1:15-cv-07433) is a defamation suit filed on September 21, 2015 in the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York]] by [[Virginia Giuffre]] against [[Ghislaine Maxwell]], after Maxwell, through a representative, publicly called Giuffre's account of recruitment and trafficking by [[Jeffrey Epstein]] lies. The claim settled on May 24, 2017. The discovery it produced, including Maxwell's own 2016 deposition, the basis of two perjury counts later brought against her, stayed under seal and was fought over by the press, by [[Alan Dershowitz]], by pseudonymous non-parties, and finally by the [[Department of Justice]] for more than nine years after the settlement. In 2026 the court authorized the government to release, under the [[Epstein Files Transparency Act]], material it had taken from Giuffre's law firm by grand jury subpoena in 2019.[^1][^2][^3]
### Filing and Discovery
The case was assigned to Judge [[Robert W. Sweet]]. Giuffre was represented by [[Sigrid McCawley|Sigrid S. McCawley]] and other lawyers of [[Boies Schiller Flexner]], the firm of [[David Boies]]; Maxwell by [[Laura Menninger|Laura A. Menninger]] and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca of [[Haddon, Morgan and Foreman]] in Denver. Maxwell moved to dismiss and to stay discovery on December 1, 2015; Sweet denied the motion to dismiss in February 2016, and Maxwell answered with a jury demand on March 14, 2016. On March 17, 2016 Sweet signed the protective order (ECF No. 62) under which the parties designated deposition transcripts and exhibits confidential and filed them under seal.[^1]
Among the witnesses deposed was [[Johanna Sjoberg]], who testified in 2016 to an incident with [[Prince Andrew]] and a caricature puppet at Epstein's Manhattan house in 2001, and Maxwell herself, whose 2016 answers under oath became Counts Seven and Eight of the 2021 superseding indictment in [[United States v. Maxwell]]; those counts were severed and dismissed at her sentencing.[^4][^5]
On January 6, 2017 Maxwell moved for summary judgment. The briefs were filed under seal, and on March 22, 2017 Sweet denied the motion in a heavily redacted 76-page opinion. The parties settled on May 24, 2017, on undisclosed terms, and the court's docket records the case as terminated the next day. The summary judgment record remained sealed.[^2]
### The First Unsealing Fight
Three outsiders sought the sealed record. Alan Dershowitz, whom Giuffre had accused and who denied her account, moved to intervene on August 11, 2016; the writer [[Mike Cernovich|Michael Cernovich]] moved on January 19, 2017 to unseal the summary judgment record; and the [[Miami Herald]] and its reporter [[Julie K. Brown]] moved on April 6, 2018, after the settlement, to unseal the entire docket. Sweet denied the requests. On July 3, 2019, three days before Epstein's arrest in New York, the [[Second Circuit]] ruled in Brown v. Maxwell that the summary judgment materials had to be unsealed and that the remaining sealed filings required individualized review, with a partial dissent that would have unsealed only Sweet's decision. About 2,000 pages of the record were unsealed on August 9, 2019, including a 2016 deposition in which Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and sworn statements in which Giuffre named men to whom she said she had been trafficked, who denied it. Epstein was found dead in his cell at the [[Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York|Metropolitan Correctional Center]] the next morning. Prison officials later cited the unsealing, "combined with a lack of significant interpersonal connections," among the factors contributing to his death.[^2][^6]
The case passed to Judge [[Loretta Preska]] after Sweet's death in 2019. On remand she held that "only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet," together with the documents relevant to his decisions on them, were judicial documents carrying a presumption of public access, and she issued orders in December 2019 and January 2020 setting an unsealing protocol on that basis.[^7][^8] On July 23, 2020, three weeks after Maxwell's arrest, Preska ordered the unsealing of materials including Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. Maxwell appealed and asked that the appeal be consolidated with her criminal appeal; a panel of Judges Cabranes, [[Rosemary S. Pooler]], and Raggi denied consolidation and affirmed on October 19, 2020, calling her arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access "meritless." Boies argued the appeal for Giuffre.[^9]
### The Doe Appeals and the January 2024 Release
Preska conducted further hearings on the protocol in January 2021, July 2021, and April 2022. On August 9, 2022 she ruled on a request by TGP Communications to unseal, and the Second Circuit affirmed in July 2023. On November 18, 2022 she ordered a broad unsealing in an oral ruling. A non-party designated "John Doe 107" and a non-party designated "Jane Doe 171" appealed. Jane Doe 171 moved to re-seal transcript material in December 2022, the Herald opposed, and Preska denied the motion on December 11, 2022. Between December 2022 and January 2024 the parties filed a series of notices listing the original sealed docket entries now ordered unsealed. The Second Circuit remanded the Doe 107 appeal on August 2, 2023 and affirmed as to Doe 171 on August 23, 2023.[^8]
On December 18, 2023 Preska issued her findings after a "particularized review" (ECF No. 1315), stayed for fourteen days to allow appeals. The resulting release began on January 3, 2024. The same day she struck five attachments to a notice of unsealed documents because they "contain personally identifiable information, the disclosure of which could threaten the safety and privacy of named individuals" (ECF No. 1324). On January 4 the Herald and Dershowitz, each through counsel, separately asked the court to unseal ECF No. 1026-3 to disclose the identities of the Jane and John Does. Further filings were struck on January 8 and 10 for "inadvertently disclosed images that should have been redacted" and for material covered by the April 19, 2022 ruling; on January 12 Preska responded to press reports that confidential material had leaked during the release; and on January 15 she stated in an order that a woman identified in domestic and international press as "Doe 102" was not Doe 102. On January 17, 2024 both Giuffre and the Herald appealed a set of Preska's orders, among them the December 2019 memorandum and the December 2023 findings. In February and April 2024 a third party twice mailed what the court called "salacious and defamatory" material to Preska's chambers, and she ordered it sealed rather than docketed.[^8]
### The 2025 Vacatur
On July 23, 2025, three months after Giuffre's death in [[Western Australia]], a Second Circuit panel of Judges [[José A. Cabranes]], [[Reena Raggi]], and [[Myrna Pérez]] decided the consolidated appeals of Giuffre and the Herald per curiam. It held that "a judicial document determination is properly made by evaluating the relevant materials at the time of their filing with the court," so that "the subsequent mooting of the motion is irrelevant to that determination," and that documents do not "receive different weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied upon." It vacated "the district court's December 2019 and January 2020 Orders in their entirety," vacated the November 18, 2022 ruling in part, including its treatment of Giuffre's Florida deposition transcript as carrying only a "barely cognizable" presumption of access, and remanded "for individualized review of materials." The mandate issued on January 8, 2026, and on January 13 Preska directed the parties and the Herald to propose how to proceed.[^7][^8]
### The Grand Jury Subpoena and the Transparency Act
On January 30, 2026, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Buckley filed a motion for disclosure on behalf of the [[U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York]] (ECF No. 1353). A Florida resident, George W. Poncy Jr., moved to intervene in February 2026. Maxwell, through Pagliuca, opposed the government's motion on February 20, 2026 (ECF No. 1360), attaching an affidavit and application of an Assistant U.S. Attorney, the transcripts of hearings held on March 26 and April 9, 2019, orders and a memorandum granting an application in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 19-MC-149 (CM), an order and a prosecutor's letter to Magistrate Judge [[Sarah Netburn]] in No. 19-MC-179, and a February 14, 2026 letter from the Justice Department on its final Epstein Files Transparency Act production. The exhibits record that in the spring of 2019, months before Epstein's arrest, federal prosecutors used a grand jury subpoena and a court order of April 9, 2019 to obtain from Boies Schiller Flexner the confidential discovery produced in Giuffre's civil case.[^3][^10]
On August 11, 2026 Preska granted the government's motion (ECF No. 1367) and added a paragraph 15 to the 2016 protective order authorizing the government to produce "documents that it received from Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, in response to a grand jury subpoena and pursuant to the April 9, 2019, order issued in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 19MC149 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), in accordance with the Government's obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Pub. L. 119-38, 139 Stat. 656 (Nov. 19, 2025)," subject to the Act's withholding and redaction provisions. Maxwell's arguments for continued sealing were rejected. Poncy's motion to intervene was denied without prejudice.[^3]
On September 3, 2026 Preska amended the caption to substitute [[Ian Torrington Blatchford]], the lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia as interim administrator of Giuffre's intestate estate, as plaintiff (ECF No. 1370). The case continued as Blatchford v. Maxwell.[^6][^11]
### Footnotes
[^1]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), Complaint, ECF No. 1 (Sept. 21, 2015); Motion to Dismiss and to Stay Discovery, ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17 (Dec. 1, 2015); Opinion denying motion to dismiss, ECF No. 37 (Feb. 2016); Answer, ECF No. 54 (March 14, 2016); Protective Order, ECF No. 62 (March 17, 2016). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
[^2]: Brown v. Maxwell; Dershowitz v. Giuffre, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), Nos. 18-2868, 16-3945-cv(L) (July 3, 2019). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4636340/brown-v-maxwell-dershowitz-v-giuffre/
[^3]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), Order, ECF No. 1367 (Aug. 11, 2026), modifying Protective Order, ECF No. 62; Epstein Files Transparency Act, Pub. L. No. 119-38, 139 Stat. 656 (Nov. 19, 2025). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
[^4]: "Details on Prince Andrew allegations emerge from new Jeffrey Epstein documents, but no U.K. police investigation," *CBS News,* January 5, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-andrew-allegations-jeffrey-epstein-documents-no-uk-police-investigation/
[^5]: United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426-cr, slip op. at 6-7 n.5 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2024), reported at 118 F.4th 256. https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2024/09/17/united_states_v._maxwell.pdf
[^6]: "Court Rules Virginia Giuffre Died Without a Will, Appoints Administrator," *Newsweek,* November 26, 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/court-rules-virginia-giuffre-died-without-will-11110482
[^7]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 146 F.4th 165 (2d Cir. 2025) (per curiam), Nos. 24-182-cv(L), 24-203-cv(con) (July 23, 2025), docketed as ECF No. 1349. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/117500106.html
[^8]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF Nos. 1220 (July 1, 2021), 1254 (April 19, 2022), 1277, 1280 (notices of appeal of Doe 107 and Doe 171), 1285-1294 (Dec. 2022), 1295-1343 (notices of unsealed documents and orders, Dec. 2022 to Jan. 2024), 1302 (mandate, July 19, 2023), 1306 (Aug. 24, 2023), 1315 (Dec. 18, 2023), 1320-1340 (Jan. 3-15, 2024), 1341-1342 (notices of appeal, Jan. 17, 2024), 1344-1348 (Feb.-April 2024), 1352 (Jan. 13, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
[^9]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413-cv, Summary Order, Doc. 140-1 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2020) (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi, JJ.), affirming the July 23, 2020 order of the District Court. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Maxwell-ca2.pdf
[^10]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), Motion for Disclosure, ECF No. 1353 (Jan. 30, 2026); Motion to Intervene of George W. Poncy Jr., ECF Nos. 1358-1359 (Feb. 2026); Maxwell Response, ECF No. 1360, with Exhibits 2-9 (Feb. 20, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/
[^11]: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y.), Order amending caption, ECF No. 1370 (Sept. 3, 2026). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/ian-torrington-blatchford-as-interim-administrator-of-virginia-giuffres/