United States
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
32
Very Strong
|
72 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
Iran
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Davis
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Bodmer
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Dreier
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
English
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Boustani
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Torres
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
location
China
|
Unknown |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Smith
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
location
China
|
Geopolitical rivals |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Sampson
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Carrillo-Villa
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Petrov
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Dominguez
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Hung
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Abdellatif El Mokadem
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Rowe
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Alindato-Perez
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Crowell
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Deutsch
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Modification of the Non-Prosecution Agreement | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Syrian situation, including the legitimacy of Mr. Assad, international response... | Global political context, U... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Clarification of provisions in paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement regarding the selecti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Assignment of Independent Third-Party | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) intended for broad, complete resolution of matters, including Eps... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) entered into by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern Dis... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement regarding Epstein's charges, sentencing, and victim representation. Includes terms for ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | War with Iran / U.S.-led attack | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation and execution of a plea agreement | Eleventh Circuit | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cold War | Global | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement execution | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein agrees to plea deal (NPA) for 18 months imprisonment. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Iranian nuclear targeting of US logistics hubs. | Middle East / Bahrain | View |
| N/A | N/A | Selection of attorney representative for victims | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Public protests and Mubarak's time of need | Cairo, Egypt | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | US shipment of battery-operated TV sets to Pacific islands. | Pacific Ocean islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hypothetical conflict/coalition warfare between US and Iran | Middle East | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential U.S. attack on Iran | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed peace conference to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. | U.S. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Palestinian bid for full U.N. membership. | United Nations | View |
| N/A | N/A | United States' decision to pursue warmer ties with Tehran. | International | View |
| N/A | Legal case | United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ | N/A | View |
| N/A | Non-prosecution agreement | Epstein agreed to a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on two charges, and in return, the ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001935.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney refutes the government's claim that a perjury charge should warrant detention, framing it as a simple denial of guilt during a deposition and emphasizing the defendant's right to be presumed innocent. The speaker also notes the government has been investigating the case for ten years and requests the proceedings remain open to present more facts.
DOJ-OGR-00001904.jpg
This document is page 27 of a court transcript from December 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk because she holds citizenship in France (which does not extradite its citizens) and the UK, owns property abroad, and possesses 'significant and undetermined and undisclosed wealth.' The government expresses concern that she could live indefinitely beyond the reach of US extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00030490.jpg
This document is a printout of a MySpace profile page for a user with the display name 'YA FUCK YOU 2!!!!!!' and the URL username 'lovelysaige'. The profile indicates the user is located in the United States and their last login was on June 13, 2006. The document footer contains a public records request number and a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bates number.
DOJ-OGR-00030480.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter dated June 5, 2006, from the Law Offices of Gerald B. Lefcourt to Ms. Lanna Belohlavek. The letter argues against an aggravated assault charge in a specific case, contending that the facts do not align with the legal definition of a violent felony, as there was no suggestion of serious bodily harm or a deadly weapon. The argument is supported by legal citations, including Florida case law and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, to demonstrate that a plea to aggravated assault would be inappropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00022135.jpg
This document is a Deferred Prosecution Agreement filed on May 25, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It outlines the terms between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defendant Tova Noel, who was indicted on November 19, 2019, for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and making false statements. For a period of six months, Noel must adhere to specific conditions, such as obeying laws and not leaving the country, in exchange for the deferral of her prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00022032.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated April 9, 2020, concerning defendant Michael Thomas (one of the guards charged in the Epstein case). The defense argues for the full disclosure of the Inspector General's report, suggesting that systemic failures within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)—such as 3,300 vacancies and overworked staff—contributed to Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, rather than solely the actions of the defendant. It references testimony by Acting Commissioner Kathleen Hawks Sawyer regarding these staffing issues.
DOJ-OGR-00021892.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court opinion, addresses arguments made by a defendant named Maxwell. The court rejects a 'categorical approach' for determining if offenses involved sexual abuse, citing testimony from a victim, 'Jane', about being abused as a minor across state lines. The document then introduces Maxwell's second argument: that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations because a 2003 amendment to § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00021889.jpg
This legal document page discusses the jurisdictional limits of U.S. Attorneys' offices in the context of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It states that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) was not notified of the NPA made by the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), and that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any involvement. The text argues, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, that a U.S. Attorney's authority is confined to their specific district and does not bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021882.jpg
This document is page 5 of an appellate court decision (filed Dec 2, 2024) affirming Ghislaine Maxwell's 2022 conviction. The text outlines the background of the case, stating that Maxwell groomed underage girls for Epstein starting in 1994 and discusses Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with federal prosecutors in Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021868.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses whether a constructive amendment to an indictment occurred. The court concludes that evidence presented by the Government, including a witness named Jane's testimony, and a subsequent jury note did not constitute a constructive amendment. The document affirms the District Court's jury instructions regarding Count Four of the Indictment, finding they correctly captured the 'core of criminality' and were not in error.
DOJ-OGR-00021859.jpg
This document excerpt discusses the jurisdictional scope of a U.S. Attorney's office, questioning whether the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein by the USAO-SDFL could bind other districts like the USAO-SDNY. It references the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that a U.S. Attorney's authority is limited to their specific district. The document also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division denied any role in reviewing or approving Epstein's NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021809.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses two key arguments. First, it affirms that charges involving the sexual abuse of a minor ("Jane") transported across state lines fall under § 3283. Second, it addresses an argument by Maxwell that certain counts are time-barred because a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations in § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court's test in 'Landgraf v. USI Film Products'.
DOJ-OGR-00021807.jpg
This legal document argues that the authority of U.S. Attorneys is statutorily limited to their specific federal districts, unless directed otherwise by the Attorney General. It applies this principle to a case involving Maxwell, suggesting that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) did not need to explicitly prevent the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting, as their jurisdiction was already confined. The argument is supported by citations to U.S. Code and the legal precedent of 'Annabi'.
DOJ-OGR-00021799.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion affirming the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell. It provides background information, stating that from 1994 to 2004, Maxwell coordinated and facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls in the United States. The document also references Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00021758.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intentionally drafted to provide immunity beyond the Southern District of Florida, evidenced by the removal of limiting language and its replacement with 'United States.' It also refutes the Government's claim that 'Main Justice' was not involved, citing OPR records showing Andrew C. Lourie (Deputy Assistant Attorney General) actively participated in negotiations from Washington, D.C. in September 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00021742.jpg
This is an Oral Argument Statement filed on July 13, 2023, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Diana Fabi Samson, representing the appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, formally requests an oral argument. The document also lists September 6, 7, 18, and 25, 2023, as dates on which the attorney is unavailable to appear in court.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021695.jpg
This legal document argues that the legislative history of a statute of limitations for child sex abuse offenses demonstrates Congress's clear intent for a 2003 amendment to apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. It cites a conference report and the 9th Circuit case United States v. Sure Chief to support its position. The document also refutes an argument by Maxwell that the statute's language is only "forward-looking," using a hypothetical offense from the year 2000 to illustrate the amendment's intended effect.
DOJ-OGR-00021660.jpg
This document is page xii of a legal filing (Document 79, Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a 'Table of Authorities,' listing various legal citations used in the main brief, including United States Code sections, New York Penal Law, Public Laws, Federal Rules of Evidence, and legal treatises, along with the page numbers where they appear.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00021505.jpg
This document is the first page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement concerning Jeffrey Epstein, filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines that both state (City of Palm Beach Police, State Attorney's Office) and federal (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI) authorities have conducted investigations into Epstein. The federal investigation covered offenses from 2001 to September 2007, including conspiracy and substantive charges related to persuading and transporting minors across state lines for prostitution and illicit sexual conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021499.jpg
This document is the first page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines five specific federal offenses Epstein is reported to have committed between 2001 and October 2005, focusing on conspiracy, interstate travel for illicit sexual conduct, and the sex trafficking of minors. The document cites specific violations of Title 18 of the United States Code.
DOJ-OGR-00021485.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report concerning the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a 2018 Miami Herald article, the OPR investigated the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The report identifies five former federal prosecutors, including former U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, as subjects of the investigation for their roles in negotiating and executing the controversial deal.
DOJ-OGR-00021466.jpg
This document is a page from a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It focuses on the FBI's use of the Victim Notification System (VNS) to send form letters to victims between 2006 and 2008, which stated the case was 'under investigation.' The report concludes that while technically not false, these letters were misleading because they failed to inform victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) reached in 2007, leading victims (such as CVRA petitioner Wild) to believe a federal prosecution was still actively moving forward.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity