| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Town of Palm Beach
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alda Creque
|
President |
1
|
1 |
This document contains an email chain among likely DOJ or FBI personnel (names redacted) discussing a Virgin Islands Daily News article from June 2020. The article details an agreement between the VI Attorney General Denise George and the Epstein Estate regarding a victim compensation fund. The internal emails express confusion and inquiry regarding a specific clause in the agreement that promises 'Access to counseling and referral services through the FBI Victim Services program,' as the senders indicate FBI HQ and the Victim Services Division (VSD) were unaware of this arrangement.
This document is a Memorandum of Investigation from the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (New York Field Office), case number 2019-010614. It details a conversation between an OIG Senior Counsel and attorney Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Weingarten informed the OIG that Epstein's estate has invoked attorney-client privilege and refuses to be interviewed by the OIG regarding the deceased inmate Jeffrey Epstein.
This document is an email thread from November 2019, shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's death, discussing scheduling logistics. An unidentified sender informs a recipient that they have a morning meeting with attorneys for Epstein's estate and will subsequently join sessions involving 'Maccow' (likely Lesley Maccow/Groff) and 'Fedora'.
This document is an email dated January 17, 2020, sent to an individual associated with USANYS (US Attorney's Office). The sender asks if the recipient's team is aware of the lawsuit filed by the Virgin Islands government against Jeffrey Epstein's estate and the 1953 Trust, specifically noting the suit seeks to void fraudulent asset transfers. The sender offers to circulate the complaint if needed.
This document is an email chain dated March 3 and 4, 2020, between employees of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The emails circulate a New York Times article titled 'Jeffrey Epstein's Mystery Bank Came Alive After His Death,' which reports that an entity named Southern Country International received millions of dollars from Epstein's estate in December 2019.
This document is an email chain from November 2019 involving the forwarding of a victim allegation to the FBI. A sender, identifying as a close friend of a 17-year-old victim and her guardian from Calderitas, Mexico, claims the victim was abused by Jeffrey Epstein at his New York townhome and Virgin Islands property. The email chain discusses a related call received on an 800 line from New Mexico, referred by the State AG, and the victim's intent to register a claim against Epstein's estate.
This document is a summary of a trial preparation interview conducted on June 7, 2021, by the USAO with a witness/victim in the Epstein case. The notes detail that the witness received a $3.5 million award from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, which she used for housing, transportation, and family support. The witness reported mental health struggles involving dreams of Epstein and disclosed that she lied about her age (claiming to be 17 when younger) to a redacted individual (presumably Epstein or an associate) while dating.
A heavily redacted email document from January 16, 2020. The visible portion contains an email discussing a lawsuit filed by the Virgin Islands government against Jeffrey Epstein's estate and the '1953 Trust'. The lawsuit seeks to void allegedly fraudulent transfers of assets to the trust. The sender offers to provide the complaint and details to the recipient's team and executives.
This document is the Last Will and Testament of Jeffrey E. Epstein, executed on January 27, 2012. It directs the transfer of all his property to 'The Jeffrey E. Epstein Trust One' (a pour-over will) and appoints Darren K. Indyke, Joseph Pagano, and Lawrence Newman as Executors, with Jes Staley and Andrew Farkas named as successors. The will includes broad powers for the Executors and a strict 'in terrorem' clause to disinherit any beneficiary who contests the validity of the will or the trust.
This document is an email chain from November 2019 in which an individual claiming to be a close friend of a 17-year-old victim from Calderitas, Mexico, reports abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. The email details that the abuse occurred at Epstein's properties in New York and the Virgin Islands and requests to register a claim against Epstein's estate. The email was forwarded internally within an organization (likely a financial institution or legal firm) with instructions to send the information to the FBI.
This document is an email from attorney Sigrid McCawley dated March 18, 2020, discussing an indemnification action filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the USVI. McCawley notes that the filing contains statements contradicting Maxwell's previous sworn depositions regarding financial support from Jeffrey Epstein and lists companies she was employed by which were not previously disclosed. The email mentions that ABC is preparing a news story on the matter.
This document is a Warranty Deed dated August 13, 1981, transferring ownership of Little St. James Island (No. 6B Red Hook Quarter, U.S. Virgin Islands) from the Creque family (represented by Creque Estates, Inc.) to Arch W. Cummin of New York City for the sum of $470,000. It lists numerous members of the Creque family as grantors and includes recording stamps from the St. Thomas Recorder's Office dated September 3, 1981. This deed establishes the ownership history of the island prior to Jeffrey Epstein's acquisition.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane' by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Jane's civil lawsuits filed in January 2020 against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's estate with the assistance of attorney Mr. Glassman.
This document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a deadline extension for electronic discovery in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government cites delays with an outside vendor processing data from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2019. The letter details the volume of discovery produced so far (350,000+ pages) and outlines the timeline of data seizure, privilege review by Epstein's estate, and subsequent warrant acquisition.
This document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a two-week extension (until Nov 23, 2020) to produce electronic discovery in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The delay is attributed to an outside vendor needing more time to process data from electronic devices seized by the FBI from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in NY and the Virgin Islands in 2019. The letter details the history of the data seizure, privilege reviews requested by Epstein's estate, and mentions that over 350,000 pages of discovery have already been produced.
This legal document, dated May 18, 2020, is a filing arguing against defendant Maxwell's request to stay discovery in a civil case. The author contends that Maxwell has failed to justify the stay based on a parallel criminal investigation and that a potential claims resolution program involving co-defendant Epstein's Estate does not require litigation to be paused. The filing cites court transcripts and case law to support the position that discovery should proceed, as it may even be necessary to facilitate settlement.
This legal document is a judicial ruling from a case dated August 10, 2022. The judge permits the defense to ask a witness, Mr. Glassman, a single, specific question about whether he told the government that he had informed another witness, Jane, that her testimony would benefit her civil case against Ms. Maxwell and Epstein's estate. The judge deems this question relevant for potential impeachment, as it could suggest a motive for Jane's testimony.
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 6, 2012, analyzes a July 8, 2011 Memorandum of Law concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. It argues that the firm's lawyers had no professional duty to disclose information discovered in March and May because the relevant ethics rules require 'actual knowledge,' which the lawyers lacked. The discussion is framed by the receipt of a letter from 'juror Conrad' on June 20 and the adversarial nature of the legal system.
This document is an exhibit (A-5849) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), but originates from a 2012 filing in the 'United States v. Daugerdas' case (1:09-cr-00581-WHP). The text analyzes the ethical conduct of lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard regarding their knowledge of misconduct by 'juror Conrad' and whether they had a duty to disclose information discovered in March and May 2011. It concludes that the lawyers did not have 'actual knowledge' requiring disclosure under Rules 3.3(b) and 3.5(d).
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the procedures for a compensation program for claimants alleging sexual abuse by Epstein. An Administrator will evaluate each claim based on various factors, including the nature of the abuse and the claimant's credibility, even without corroborating documentation. The document details the process for making a confidential compensation offer and notes that claimants will have an opportunity to be heard by the Administrator, with accommodations made due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues that witness memories are faded and contaminated by media, and that Jeffrey Epstein manipulated everyone, including Maxwell. The text asserts that accusers were motivated or manipulated by civil attorneys seeking money and notes that testifying witnesses received millions of dollars from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Fund with minimal vetting.
This document is page A40 of 46 from a Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) filed by Donald J. Trump. It details the ownership structure of various entities including golf clubs, real estate holdings (1290 Avenue of the Americas), and operational LLCs, listing DJT Holdings LLC, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and 'Trump Family Members' as primary owners. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee; there is no mention of Jeffrey Epstein or associated entities on this specific page.
This document is page A37 of 46 from Donald J. Trump's OGE Form 278e financial disclosure. It lists the ownership structures, percentages, and parent entities for various Trump organizations, specifically those numbered 441 through 451. The entities primarily relate to developments in Toronto, Trump Tower management, Vineyard Estates, and Virginia acquisitions, with ownership often held through DJT Holdings LLC or The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.
Page A17 from Donald J. Trump's OGE Form 278e financial disclosure. The document lists ownership structures for various entities including The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative (formerly Trump University), The Trump Follies LLC, The Trump Hotel Corp, and Trump International Golf Links - Doonbeg. It details minority shareholders Jonathan Spitalny and Michael Sexton in the Entrepreneur Initiative, as well as the holding structure of the Trump Organization and related real estate entities. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
The document is a table listing rankings 81 through 100 of the 'Top 100 Palm Beach Accounts by Average Monthly Consumption' for FY 07-08. It details water usage metrics (CCF and Gallons) and average monthly bills for various high-profile residents and entities in Palm Beach, including Eugene Applebaum, Martin Gruss, and Jeffry Picower. The document indicates that the Top 100 accounts were responsible for 35% of total consumption and 42% of total revenue for Palm Beach during this period.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-11-07 | Paid | Estate | Palm Beach Utilities | $1,049.12 | Average Monthly Bill | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity