Jeffrey Epstein case timeline reveals non‑prosecution deal, FBI probe, and high‑level contacts
Summary
Jeffrey Epstein case timeline reveals non‑prosecution deal, FBI probe, and high‑level contacts The document outlines concrete actions – e.g., a sealed non‑prosecution agreement negotiated by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, FBI Operation "Leap Year," grand‑jury subpoenas, and flight‑log evidence linking Epstein to senior politicians. These details provide specific names, dates, locations, and procedural steps that can be followed up by investigators, and they implicate powerful officials (Acosta, former President Trump’s labor secretary, former President Clinton, former national security adviser Sandy Berger, Prince Andrew). If verified, the leads would spark major public outcry and legal scrutiny. Key insights: Acosta met Epstein’s lawyer Jay Lefkowitz at the West Palm Beach Marriott to discuss a sealed non‑prosecution agreement.; FBI opened a federal investigation "Operation Leap Year" in July 2006, later interviewing witnesses across multiple states.; Grand‑jury subpoenas for Epstein’s computers were issued in 2007, but the devices were removed before the search.
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Related Documents (6)
Timeline of Jeffrey Epstein legal actions reveals repeated plea negotiations, non‑prosecution agreements, and alleged involvement of high‑profile officials
Timeline of Jeffrey Epstein legal actions reveals repeated plea negotiations, non‑prosecution agreements, and alleged involvement of high‑profile officials The document outlines a detailed chronology of federal and state investigations, plea‑bargain talks, and a non‑prosecution agreement that involved U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, former Deputy Attorney General Jay Lefkowitz, and mentions of President Bill Clinton, former NSC adviser Sandy Berger, and Prince Andrew. It provides concrete dates, names, and procedural steps that could be pursued for deeper investigation into possible misconduct, abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and undisclosed victim notifications. While many details are already public, the specific references to internal DOJ discussions and the alleged secret addendum to the non‑prosecution deal constitute a moderately strong lead. Key insights: Repeated negotiations between Epstein’s legal team and DOJ officials (Acosta, Lefkowitz) from 2005‑2008.; Reference to a non‑prosecution agreement that allegedly required victim non‑notification and a special master to represent victims.; FBI involvement noted in 2006‑2009, including a butler’s testimony about a “black book” of underage girls.
Timeline of Jeffrey Epstein legal actions reveals repeated plea negotiations, non‑prosecution agreements, and alleged involvement of high‑profile o...
The document outlines a detailed chronology of federal and state investigations, plea‑bargain talks, and a non‑prosecution agreement that involved U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, former Deputy Attorne Repeated negotiations between Epstein’s legal team and DOJ officials (Acosta, Lefkowitz) from 2005‑2 Reference to a non‑prosecution agreement that allegedly required victim non‑notification and a spe
Jeffrey Epstein case timeline reveals non‑prosecution deal, FBI probe, and high‑level contacts
The document outlines concrete actions – e.g., a sealed non‑prosecution agreement negotiated by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, FBI Operation "Leap Year," grand‑jury subpoenas, and flight‑log evidence Acosta met Epstein’s lawyer Jay Lefkowitz at the West Palm Beach Marriott to discuss a sealed non‑pr FBI opened a federal investigation "Operation Leap Year" in July 2006, later interviewing witnesse
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 v. UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to more tha
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.