The Hidden Pact – Why the Jeffrey Epstein Case Can Only Be Understood by Reconstructing the 2007 Proceedings and How Ghislaine Maxwell Now Seeks to Benefit from It

(Approximate reading time: 15 minutes without supporting documents)

Whoever wants to understand the case of Jeffrey Epstein—whoever wants to grasp how a man facing dozens of witness statements, police photos, DNA evidence, victim lists, and search warrants could still evade a federal trial—must go back to the beginning. Not to Manhattan in 2019. Not to the cell where he died. But back to Florida. To the year 2007. To that first case, which today stands as a textbook example of institutional failure, political interference, and a systemic betrayal of victims. And which we have reconstructed in every detail. Because nothing about this deal was inevitable. Nothing about this agreement was legally necessary. It was the result of a power structure that eluded public scrutiny. We analyzed internal memos, correspondence, draft indictments, witness notes, and the original versions of the settlement documents. Anyone asking why Epstein remained free for so long will not find the answer in New York—but in Miami. In May 2006, the U.S. Attorney’s Office takes over the case. Months earlier, police in Palm Beach had searched Epstein’s mansion and found evidence of the systematic abuse of underage girls: appointment books, massage tables, surveillance equipment, and hundred-dollar bills in the drawers. When Marie Villafaña, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, reviews the file, she recommends a federal indictment. In internal emails, she warns of the “networked structure” Epstein used to systematically recruit young girls from vulnerable backgrounds.

But already in the fall of 2006, Epstein’s attorneys begin to undermine the proceedings. They arrange informal meetings with senior prosecutors, visit Alexander Acosta, the head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, privately in his office. Names like Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Roy Black, and Alan Dershowitz appear on the visitor logs. The meeting requests are urgent. The defense demands that no federal indictment be filed. When that does not immediately succeed, they introduce new conditions: a state-level resolution, criminal immunity for Epstein and his associates, and complete confidentiality. During this phase, a key piece of evidence disappears - a computer containing Epstein’s appointment calendars, emails, and photos. Police had failed to secure it during an earlier attempt before a search warrant was issued. When Villafaña tries to obtain a new warrant in the spring of 2007, the Department of Justice refuses to provide support. The defense denies that the computer exists or contains evidence. No one pushes further.

On June 1, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office proposes a plea deal: two years in state prison, a guilty plea to state charges, registration as a sex offender. The defense rejects the offer. On July 26, Acosta presents the final terms in an internal meeting: no federal indictment. Two years in a Florida state facility. No public disclosure of the deal. No notification to the victims. What follows is a legal disarmament process. The sentence is reduced without written justification to 20 months, then to 18 months. An internal email from Jeffrey Sloman, Acosta’s deputy, documents the development: “Epstein is willing to accept 20 months.” Then: “We are working on a solution that allows 18 months.” Who made the proposal remains unclear. There is no memo. No written decision. In parallel, the defense demands immunity for additional individuals. The agreement text includes a clause stating that the government “will not institute criminal charges against potential co-conspirators.” Specifically meant are: Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross, Nadia Marcinkova. All appear in the investigative files. None is ever charged - until many years later.

ChatGPT: Another element: the victims were deliberately not informed. Villafaña protested, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which mandates that victims be notified of key prosecutorial decisions. Her warnings were ignored. Internal emails show that Sloman instructed her not to make contact. “Take no risks,” he said. They did not want to jeopardize the deal. On September 24, 2007, the Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed. Epstein would later not be transferred to a federal prison but instead to the Palm Beach County Jail. There, after just a few days, he was granted work release: twelve hours a day, from Monday through Sunday, he was allowed to go to his office. Visitor logs show that he was repeatedly visited there by young women. No one intervened. The public learned nothing about any of this. The entire agreement remained secret. It only partially surfaced in 2010. It was disclosed by court order in 2018. Political scrutiny did not begin until 2019. By that time, Epstein had been arrested again – and died in jail.

But the legal effect of the deal persisted. The clause on non-prosecution was worded in such a way that it remained unclear whether it bound other U.S. Attorney’s Offices. When the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York brought charges again in 2019, it spent months reviewing whether the old NPA limited its authority. Only after Epstein’s death did they state they did not consider themselves bound by it. In the meantime, victims filed suit, bringing legal action against the government. A federal court ruled in 2019 that their rights had been violated - but legally undoing the deal was nearly impossible. There was no leverage. Jane Doe 1 is now identified as Courtney Wild. Jane Doe 2 was never officially named in court documents, but several credible investigations suggest that she is a woman who has continued to withhold her name out of fear of retaliation. A federal court ruled in her favor in 2019 - but because Epstein was already dead, the agreement could no longer be legally reversed.

Alexander Acosta, by then serving as Secretary of Labor under Donald Trump, came under pressure in 2019. He defended his actions - arguing that he had secured the best possible outcome. The pressure became too great. He resigned. But a full investigation never took place. They are not in the spotlight, but their names are explicitly listed in the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein: Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. Four women who, according to investigative files, witness statements, and journalistic reports, played a central role in the network of the convicted sex offender - and who to this day benefit from a grant of immunity that many legal experts describe as a disgrace to the U.S. justice system. Sarah Kellen, now known as Sarah Kellen Vickers, was for years considered Epstein’s assistant, coordinator, and shadow figure. “The way he likes it” - that is how, according to multiple witnesses, she instructed underage girls before their first encounter with Epstein. She booked flights, selected rooms, organized massages, and was often present in the room when the abuse occurred. Despite these statements, and despite being named in multiple lawsuits, she was never charged. Instead, she married NASCAR driver Brian Vickers and now lives a quiet life in the United States. The protection granted to her under the Non-Prosecution Agreement of September 24, 2007, remains effective to this day. Adriana Ross, a former model from Poland, worked at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. Her role: scheduling massage appointments. Her task, according to the FBI: systematically deleting electronic files once the investigation began. She, too, was never held accountable. Ross, who has withdrawn from the public eye for years, is believed to be living in Europe today. Lesley Groff was Epstein’s longtime assistant in New York, responsible for his calendar, his contacts, and his financial transactions. She coordinated flights, spoke with potential “masseuses,” made payments - and according to internal statements, Epstein treated her almost like a family member. She was never indicted either, despite being named as a co-conspirator in several civil lawsuits in 2020. And then there is Nadia Marcinkova, described by Epstein himself as “his sex slave.” She is likely originally from Slovakia and was naturalized with his help. Several victims reported that she was brought to Florida as a minor and later actively participated in abuse. U.S. authorities categorized her partly as a victim, partly as a perpetrator. She was never charged. Today, she reportedly works as an air traffic controller in Florida - under the name Nadia Marcinko.

The fact that all these women were shielded from prosecution by a secret federal agreement has sparked disbelief in both legal and public discourse to this day. The Non-Prosecution Agreement not only tied the hands of investigators - it was also never disclosed to the victims. The immunity granted to Kellen, Ross, Groff, and Marcinkova remains a symbol of the decades-long disparity in the American legal system - where power, money, and influence outweighed truth and justice.

It is a document of historic gravity - a legal construct that continues to shake the very notion of what criminal prosecution is allowed to achieve in a democratic rule-of-law system - and what it is not. On September 24, 2007, Jeffrey Epstein signed what is known as a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The 7-page agreement, concluded under the supervision of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, contained not only extraordinary concessions to Epstein himself - but also protective clauses for his alleged female co-conspirators. Already on the first page, it becomes clear what was really at stake: the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office accused Epstein, among other things, of having conspired with other known and unknown individuals to commit a conspiracy against the United States - with the goal of persuading underage girls to engage in prostitution across state lines. The wording reads: “… knowingly and willfully conspired with others […] to persuade, induce, or entice minor girls to engage in prostitution in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).” Nevertheless, the entire federal investigation was dropped - in favor of a deal with the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office. The agreement explicitly stated that no charges would be filed against Epstein as long as he met certain conditions. One of those conditions was that Epstein would plead guilty on the state level to two relatively minor charges: solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor for prostitution. The resulting sentence: 18 months in jail, of which he served only 13 - partially on work release. Perhaps the most outrageous detail appears on page 5: the U.S. government explicitly agreed not to prosecute potential co-conspirators of Epstein - naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. This is an extraordinary clause, one that is virtually without precedent in American law.

The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. The U.S. Attorney’s Office even committed to notifying Epstein in advance if the agreement were ever to be disclosed - for instance through the Freedom of Information Act. The victims, who were underage girls at the time, were never informed of the deal’s existence - a clear violation of the United States’ Crime Victims’ Rights Act. In 2019, a federal court ruled that their rights had been violated, but the agreement could no longer be overturned legally. By that point, Epstein was already dead. Particularly serious is the clause stating that all active grand jury subpoenas would be suspended upon signing the agreement - including the obligation to preserve certain computer equipment and evidence. This protected Epstein and his associates from further scrutiny of their activities. Epstein was also allowed to self-surrender to begin his sentence - months after the sentencing had been handed down. The date of sentencing was postponed at his personal request. Prosecutors agreed to provide Epstein’s lawyers with a list of the victims. Epstein, in turn, was barred from contacting those individuals directly - except through a representative paid by him. This absurd mechanism ultimately granted Epstein a measure of control over communication with the victims. Finally, Epstein also waived his right to be indicted by a grand jury in the event of new charges. Even if the agreement were violated, a mere “notice” by the prosecution would suffice - yet another safeguard in favor of the accused.

Legally, this agreement represents a textbook example of a so-called Deferred Prosecution Agreement - with the distinction that it shielded not only the primary defendant, but also his entire alleged network. The document is a harrowing testament to how a group of powerful men and institutions were willing to use their influence to shield a sexual predator - at the expense of justice and the victims.

The Return of the Deal – Ghislaine Maxwell, the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and Perhaps the Most Dangerous Precedent in U.S. Legal History

As our investigation has revealed, Maxwell is now trying to jump on the same train. It was the most criticized agreement in recent American legal history – a secret arrangement between a billionaire sex offender and a U.S. Attorney’s Office, concluded in the shadow of justice. And now, nearly two decades later, Ghislaine Maxwell wants to make this deal her own lifeline. Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator, convicted of trafficking minors, is asking the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn her conviction – citing an agreement she never signed, but which she believes protects her. Maxwell’s attorneys argue that the so-called Non-Prosecution Agreement Epstein reached in 2007 with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida grants her full immunity – even from later charges in New York. The deal included the clause that the U.S. government would not bring criminal charges against “potential co-conspirators,” naming several of Epstein’s assistants. Maxwell was not mentioned. And yet she now sees herself covered by that very wording. The case is now before the Supreme Court under docket number 24-1073. The question that now arises goes far beyond Maxwell herself: can a single U.S. Attorney, through a hidden deal, create nationwide protection for third parties – and thereby undermine the justice systems of entire states? The defense’s argument rests on a single word: “United States.” The agreement states that the United States would not bring charges against Epstein’s co-conspirators. Maxwell wants to interpret this as a general, nationwide assurance. But the Department of Justice strongly disagrees. The wording, it argues, clearly referred – in the context of the time – to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida, not to the entire federal government. What Maxwell is demanding goes far beyond a retrial. She is asking for a reinterpretation of what Non-Prosecution Agreements are even allowed to mean. If the Supreme Court were to grant her request, it would mean that in the future a regional U.S. Attorney could, in secret, shield not only a defendant but also his entire alleged network from prosecution across the country – without other U.S. Attorneys ever having to be informed. The Justice Department warns of the consequences. Such “global immunity clauses” would undermine all federal oversight and disrupt the balance between the 94 judicial districts. To acquit Maxwell on this basis now would turn the original mistake into a legally binding principle. Particularly perverse is the asymmetry: Epstein himself was indicted again in 2019 – by the very same office in New York that later brought Maxwell to justice. But if the Non-Prosecution Agreement really had the scope Maxwell now claims, she – and not Epstein – would have been immune to such charges. That a deal could offer greater protection to the co-conspirator than to the primary offender defies all logic. Another key point carries significant weight: Maxwell was never a party to this agreement. The NPA was signed between Epstein and the Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office – Maxwell was not involved. Under contract law, only those explicitly named as beneficiaries, or for whom the contracting parties clearly intended to provide protection, may derive rights from it. But at the time of the agreement’s conclusion, the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not even know the specifics of Maxwell’s role in the abuse system. She was not part of the investigation, not part of the negotiations – and never mentioned. Even if one were to assume that the clause was meant to shield co-conspirators – it remains too vague to confer enforceable rights to a third party like Maxwell. Several federal courts agree: the agreement is “not a global shield” – it carries no effect beyond its clearly defined scope – neither geographically nor personally. It is also questionable whether the case is even suitable to be heard by the Supreme Court. The lower courts – both the district and appellate levels – are in agreement: the deal does not protect Maxwell. And unlike in other cases where federal courts have reached conflicting rulings on the same legal question, there is no split here. According to the Justice Department, this is not a constitutional case – but an individual case, legally clear and long settled.

And yet the case now appears on the list of pending proceedings. The Supreme Court could set a precedent – and determine whether deals like Epstein’s can provide protection even when made in secret and never authorized by the main Department of Justice. It would be a dangerous precedent. The name Alexander Acosta has long become a symbol of judicial failure – and perhaps much more, as our investigation into the matter is still ongoing. The decision to spare Epstein in 2007 with a deal that effectively granted him impunity not only betrayed the victims but also shattered public trust in law enforcement. That a co-conspirator is now trying to exploit that very failure to save herself casts an even darker shadow over the scope of this agreement. This is not an ordinary appeal. It is an attempt to turn a failed piece of American legal history into a tool of self-liberation – into a ticket to freedom for a woman who, for years, was part of a system of abuse. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the law will once again become an instrument of concealment – or whether it will finally, even if belatedly, fulfill its original function: justice. Anyone who wants to understand how Epstein was able to survive for so long, why his crimes were systematically ignored, why women had to fight for decades to obtain justice, will not find the answer in the final days of his life. The answer lies in the memos, meeting notes, and negotiation documents from 2007. Anyone who does not understand how this deal came to be will never understand how the justice system failed – and why certain circles are doing everything they can to keep it buried. We are reconstructing the entire case, and we will not let go – and we will not stop in the future.

To be continued .....

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.