Vickers
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Vickers, 708 F. App’x 732 | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2014-05-08 | Court case | The ruling in United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA), 2014 WL 1838255. | W.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2014-05-08 | Legal case | The W.D.N.Y. court ruled in United States v. Vickers. | W.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2014-05-08 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 | W.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2014-01-01 | Legal decision | The court decision in Vickers, 2014 WL 1838255, which held that Section 3283 does not require a s... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00003129.jpg
This document is page 195 of 239 from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of evidence regarding 'Minor Victim-3' under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b), stating that the defendant's grooming patterns were idiosyncratic and that the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial compared to the charges involving Victims 1 and 2. It explicitly states the defendant witnessed and participated in the abuse of victims at the hands of Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00003115.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a portion of a legal argument defending an indictment against a motion to dismiss. The argument asserts that using pseudonyms for minor victims and providing an approximate date range (1994-1997) for the alleged crimes is legally sound, citing precedents like Stringer, Kidd, and Stavroulakis. It further argues the defendant is not prejudiced, as the government has provided and will provide specific details, such as victim birth information and witness names, during discovery.
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-00002999.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument against a defendant's motion. The author contends that Section 3283, concerning sexual abuse offenses, should be interpreted broadly, citing precedents like 'Vickers' and 'Schneider'. The document argues that the defendant's reliance on the 'essential ingredients' test from 'Bridges v. United States' is misplaced because that case dealt with a different, more narrowly drafted statute (the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) and is therefore inapplicable.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002958.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204) filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous legal cases, primarily with the United States as the plaintiff, along with their full legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited are from various federal courts and span several decades, serving as legal precedent for the arguments made in the filing.
DOJ-OGR-00005835.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of 'Minor Victim-3's' testimony under Rule 404(b) to establish the defendant's intent and modus operandi regarding grooming and recruitment. It cites three legal precedents (Vickers, McDarrah, and Brand) to support the admission of evidence regarding grooming, email communications, and interest in minors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017965.jpg
This document is a printout of a Miami Herald article filed as a legal exhibit detailing the lenient treatment Jeffrey Epstein received during his 2008 sentencing and probation. It highlights how federal prosecutors and Epstein's legal team negotiated a plea deal that minimized charges, excluded victims from the process, and granted immunity to four named accomplices.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017802.jpg
This document is a Miami Herald article detailing how Jeffrey Epstein manipulated the legal system, even from jail, to minimize his criminal charges and avoid public scrutiny. It highlights the cozy relationship between federal prosecutors and Epstein's legal team, which resulted in a plea deal that kept victims uninformed and allowed Epstein to argue that his victims were prostitutes, not victims of abuse. The article also identifies four accomplices who received immunity.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity