United States
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Decision in the case of United States v. Watkins. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Davis, which stated that a statutory phrase should have a fixed mean... | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR 289, 2019 WL 2210663 is cited. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The court case United States v. Gaudet, 933 F.3d 11, 15–16 (1st Cir. 2019) is cited as a preceden... | 1st Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Decision in the case of United States v. Boustani. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Court ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Eldred. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Boustani. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal case | The date of the cited case, United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal proceeding | A court decision was made in the case of United States v. Raniere. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case of United States v. Raniere, which is cited as precedent. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-12-05 | Court decision | In United States v. Raniere, the court noted that since it had already held one detention hearing... | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-10-02 | Court ruling | In United States v. Hussain, the defendant was granted a $100,000 personal recognizance bond with... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2018-09-26 | Court ruling | Ruling in the case of United States v. Williams. | E.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-08-09 | Legal case | The date of the United States v. Pierre-Louis case cited in the footnote. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-08-09 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Pierre-Louis. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2018-04-10 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Pizarro. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2018-04-10 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN). | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-02-04 | Legal case | United States v. Patrick Ho, where the defendant was ordered detained based on risk of flight, st... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-02-04 | Legal case | United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2018-01-31 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP). | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | Revision of the US-South Korea trade agreement. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | South Korea is excluded from US steel tariffs in exchange for capping its steel exports. | N/A | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018). | 1st Cir. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018) was decided. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010693.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two of Ghislaine Maxwell's victims, Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, should be permitted to give oral victim impact statements at her upcoming sentencing. It provides factual background on the sex trafficking conspiracy Maxwell and her coconspirator, Jeffrey Epstein, ran for over a decade. The document details how they targeted young women, like Ransome and Stein, who came to New York for the fashion industry, by preying on their vulnerabilities and promising career advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
DOJ-OGR-00010569.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a defendant's actions satisfy the requirements for a 'covered sex crime' under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The prosecution asserts that the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct, including transporting victims (Jane) and non-consensual touching (Jane and Carolyn), justifying a sentencing enhancement. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the guideline is inapplicable, citing case law and the original congressional intent to ensure lengthy incarceration for such offenders.
DOJ-OGR-00010568.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on June 22, 2022, argues for a five-level sentencing enhancement under Section 4B1.5. The prosecution contends the enhancement applies because the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct, refuting the defense's claim of double-counting. The document cites testimony from victims Jane and Annie, who received money and a trip to Thailand respectively, as evidence of a 'commercial sex act' to support the enhancement.
DOJ-OGR-00010453.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was not a flight risk despite her foreign nationalities and remained in the United States after Epstein's death. It states her presence in New Hampshire was for her own protection and that her lawyers were in contact with prosecutors for a self-surrender. The document contends that her detention on July 6, 2020, and subsequent denial of four bail applications were based on an unfounded claim of flight risk by the government.
DOJ-OGR-00010374.jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated April 29, 2022, analyzes the legal distinctions between two conspiracy charges, Count Three and Count Five. The author argues that despite being charged under the same statute, the counts are not multiplicitous because they have different statutory objectives, legal definitions (e.g., of a 'minor'), and required elements of intent, citing precedents like Macchia, Estrada, and Villa. The document refutes the Government's claim that a single distinguishing factor is dispositive in this analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00010207.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from March 18, 2013, argues for a significant prison sentence for an individual named Parse. It details his central role as a Deutsche Bank representative in a massive criminal tax fraud scheme involving multiple co-conspirators and fraudulent tax shelters, which generated over $7 billion in fraudulent deductions and caused over $230 million in actual losses to the U.S. Treasury. The document highlights that Parse earned over $3 million in commissions for his indispensable role in the scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
DOJ-OGR-00009866.jpg
This document is a Reuters news article dated January 5, 2022, concerning the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The article's headline, attributed to a juror, states that some members of the jury initially had doubts about the credibility of Maxwell's accusers. The document also bears a legal case number and a Department of Justice (DOJ) identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing from March 11, 2022, outlines the legal standards and strong judicial disfavor for post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, it explains that such inquiries threaten the finality of verdicts and the integrity of the jury system. The document also details the strict, two-part test a defendant must satisfy to obtain a new trial based on a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire, requiring proof of both dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have warranted a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg
This legal document, dated January 19, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial because at least one juror, identified as Juror No. 50, was dishonest during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The filing requests that the Court either vacate the jury's verdict and order a new trial, or alternatively, hold an evidentiary hearing to question all twelve jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00009528.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 18, 2013, outlines the case against an individual named Parse, an investment representative at Deutsche Bank. It details his central role in a massive criminal tax fraud scheme involving fraudulent tax shelters, which resulted in over $7 billion in fraudulent deductions and over $230 million in actual losses to the U.S. Treasury. The document argues that Parse's conduct, for which he earned over $3 million in commissions, warrants a significant prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00009517.jpg
This legal document, a letter from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III dated March 7, 2013, argues for a lenient sentence for their client, David Parse. The letter contends that Parse's role was limited to that of a broker executing trades, not designing or marketing illegal tax shelters, and that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh for his level of culpability. It further notes that of all the brokers performing similar functions for the law firm Jenkins, only Parse and Craig Brubaker were prosecuted, with Parse being the only one convicted.
DOJ-OGR-00009447.jpg
This document is the first page of a legal declaration by Stephen Gillers, a law professor and expert in legal ethics, filed on April 6, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gillers outlines his extensive qualifications and states that he has been asked by the court to provide an opinion on whether the attorneys for clients named Bruce and Richard fulfilled their ethical obligations regarding the potential failure to disclose a letter and an investigation concerning 'Juror No. 1' during March, May, and July of 2011.
DOJ-OGR-00003135.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution (the Government) in the criminal case against the defendant, Maxwell. The Government argues that Maxwell's various motions for disclosure, including a request for a bill of particulars, should be denied as they are meritless or premature. The prosecution asserts that it has already provided sufficient information through the indictment and discovery, and that the defendant is not entitled to the requested details under established law.
DOJ-OGR-00003059.jpg
This legal document, page 125 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, discusses the application of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the act of producing documents. It cites several legal precedents to argue that the privilege only applies when the act of production itself is testimonial and incriminating, not merely because the documents' contents are incriminating. The document further asserts that the Fifth Amendment is primarily concerned with protecting individuals from governmental coercion, not from other moral or psychological pressures.
DOJ-OGR-00003000.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues against using a 'categorical approach' to interpret the phrase 'offense involving' in Section 3283. It cites several legal precedents, most notably Weingarten v. United States, to counter an argument made by an individual named Maxwell. The document asserts that Congress intended a broad application of the statute and that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing or immigration contexts, is not appropriate here.
DOJ-OGR-00002985.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 16, 2021. It outlines the statutory background regarding the statute of limitations for crimes against minors, arguing against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell. The document traces the history of relevant legislation, including the Crime Control Act of 1990, to counter Maxwell's claim that the charges against her do not involve the sexual or physical abuse of a child, and urges the court to deny her motion.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00002964.jpg
This legal document is an argument by the prosecution against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant to the current case. The key reasons are that the defendant was not a party to the NPA, the agreement is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (where the case is being tried), and the NPA does not provide immunity for the specific crimes with which the defendant is charged.
DOJ-OGR-00032325.jpg
This is a Palm Beach Police Department incident report detailing an interview conducted on October 11, 2005, with a redacted witness/victim regarding her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. The report describes her initial recruitment by a woman named Sara, her first massage encounter with Epstein which escalated to sexual acts, and subsequent visits where she witnessed Epstein's assistant, Nada Marcinkova, whom Epstein claimed to have purchased as a sex slave.
DOJ-OGR-00020032.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing for Ghislaine Maxwell, argues for her release on bail by highlighting her strong family ties, particularly her loving and supportive relationship with her husband. It explains that her husband did not act as a co-signer on her initial bail application in an effort to protect him from 'ferocious media aggression.' He is now coming forward, concerned about her treatment in detention at the MDC, and is prepared to pledge all of their assets to secure her compliance with bail conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00004824.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), appearing to cite the precedent of the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby). The text details former D.A. Bruce Castor's legal strategy to issue a non-prosecution statement for Bill Cosby specifically to prevent him from invoking the Fifth Amendment in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. It includes the text of a press release announcing the conclusion of the investigation into the January 2004 allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00004650.jpg
This document outlines the terms of a legal agreement between the United States Attorney's Office and Epstein, deferring federal prosecution in favor of state prosecution in Florida. It specifies conditions Epstein must follow, consequences for violating the agreement, and the promise of dismissal of charges upon successful fulfillment of terms. The agreement is authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta.
DOJ-OGR-00004649.jpg
This document is the first page of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines the investigations conducted by the Palm Beach Police, the State Attorney's Office, the US Attorney's Office, and the FBI covering the period from 2001 to September 2007. It explicitly details the federal crimes the investigation uncovered, including conspiracy to traffic minor females for prostitution and traveling in interstate commerce for illicit sexual conduct with minors (violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2423, and 371).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity