[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Niels Groeneveld [@nigroeneveld](/creator/twitter/nigroeneveld) on x 12.8K followers Created: 2025-07-22 18:14:30 UTC The Letter Ignored: When the DOJ Chose Silence Over Action Long before Jeffrey Epstein’s death closed one door to prosecution, another door had already been willfully left unopened. In the files preserved through years of litigation—sworn declarations, appeal exhibits, and correspondence between survivor attorneys and federal officials—a single letter emerges as a fulcrum: a documented plea sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting intervention, support, or at minimum, acknowledgement. The DOJ’s response? Silence. This was not the silence of bureaucratic backlog. It was strategic omission—non-engagement as policy. The letter, composed by survivor counsel and supported by contemporaneous testimony, detailed both historical abuse and ongoing procedural harm. It named names, outlined failures, and specifically highlighted how the existing non-prosecution agreement in Florida (2007) violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The survivors were not asking for symbolism. They were demanding rights under the very statutes the DOJ was created to enforce. And yet, the letter was neither acted upon nor acknowledged in any meaningful legal sense. It was neither entered into a formal CVRA review process, nor treated with the urgency its allegations warranted. This is particularly damning when considered against the backdrop of what the DOJ did engage in: continued coordination with the Southern District of Florida’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, which had secretly brokered Epstein’s immunity deal—a deal that insulated co-conspirators and bypassed victim notification requirements entirely. The Department's silence carried consequences. While survivors continued to come forward and provide evidence, the DOJ’s non-response validated a precedent: that civil complainants—even those alleging decades of child trafficking—could be ignored if the political calculus made acknowledgment inconvenient. This allowed perpetrators and enablers to remain shielded, assets to be restructured, and reputations to be rehabilitated. In hindsight, the letter now functions as a timestamp of willful neglect—a piece of documented institutional failure that prosecutors cannot easily explain away. It was specific. It was actionable. And it was dismissed, not with a denial, but with absence. This tactic—ignoring the correspondence rather than confronting it—was not isolated. Throughout the broader case history, redacted email chains and internal agency memos suggest a culture of non-escalation. If an issue presented political risk or threatened the finality of a previous federal deal, the instinct was not to resolve—it was to delay, defer, and deny through omission. When the Office of Professional Responsibility was later tasked with reviewing prosecutorial conduct related to Epstein, this letter was never publicly addressed. It didn’t appear in their limited findings. No DOJ official has ever publicly explained why a request from victims’ attorneys invoking federal statutes was met with no reply. No investigation followed. No internal accountability was offered. It is within this absence that a quiet pattern becomes clear: the DOJ, an agency tasked with enforcing justice and protecting victims, had become, in this instance, an institutional bystander. The decision not to respond was not administrative oversight—it was a political act. One that chose silence over confrontation, and in doing so, reinforced the very system that allowed Epstein to thrive for decades. XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [files](/topic/files) [jeffrey epsteins](/topic/jeffrey-epsteins) [doj](/topic/doj) [Post Link](https://x.com/nigroeneveld/status/1947721934285820412)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Niels Groeneveld @nigroeneveld on x 12.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-22 18:14:30 UTC
The Letter Ignored: When the DOJ Chose Silence Over Action
Long before Jeffrey Epstein’s death closed one door to prosecution, another door had already been willfully left unopened. In the files preserved through years of litigation—sworn declarations, appeal exhibits, and correspondence between survivor attorneys and federal officials—a single letter emerges as a fulcrum: a documented plea sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting intervention, support, or at minimum, acknowledgement. The DOJ’s response? Silence.
This was not the silence of bureaucratic backlog. It was strategic omission—non-engagement as policy. The letter, composed by survivor counsel and supported by contemporaneous testimony, detailed both historical abuse and ongoing procedural harm. It named names, outlined failures, and specifically highlighted how the existing non-prosecution agreement in Florida (2007) violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The survivors were not asking for symbolism. They were demanding rights under the very statutes the DOJ was created to enforce.
And yet, the letter was neither acted upon nor acknowledged in any meaningful legal sense. It was neither entered into a formal CVRA review process, nor treated with the urgency its allegations warranted. This is particularly damning when considered against the backdrop of what the DOJ did engage in: continued coordination with the Southern District of Florida’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, which had secretly brokered Epstein’s immunity deal—a deal that insulated co-conspirators and bypassed victim notification requirements entirely.
The Department's silence carried consequences. While survivors continued to come forward and provide evidence, the DOJ’s non-response validated a precedent: that civil complainants—even those alleging decades of child trafficking—could be ignored if the political calculus made acknowledgment inconvenient. This allowed perpetrators and enablers to remain shielded, assets to be restructured, and reputations to be rehabilitated.
In hindsight, the letter now functions as a timestamp of willful neglect—a piece of documented institutional failure that prosecutors cannot easily explain away. It was specific. It was actionable. And it was dismissed, not with a denial, but with absence.
This tactic—ignoring the correspondence rather than confronting it—was not isolated. Throughout the broader case history, redacted email chains and internal agency memos suggest a culture of non-escalation. If an issue presented political risk or threatened the finality of a previous federal deal, the instinct was not to resolve—it was to delay, defer, and deny through omission.
When the Office of Professional Responsibility was later tasked with reviewing prosecutorial conduct related to Epstein, this letter was never publicly addressed. It didn’t appear in their limited findings. No DOJ official has ever publicly explained why a request from victims’ attorneys invoking federal statutes was met with no reply. No investigation followed. No internal accountability was offered.
It is within this absence that a quiet pattern becomes clear: the DOJ, an agency tasked with enforcing justice and protecting victims, had become, in this instance, an institutional bystander. The decision not to respond was not administrative oversight—it was a political act. One that chose silence over confrontation, and in doing so, reinforced the very system that allowed Epstein to thrive for decades.
XXX engagements
Related Topics files jeffrey epsteins doj