Illinois
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Taylor
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988-01-01 | Court case | Citation to Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988). | N/A | View |
| 1978-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case citation for Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). | Illinois | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002323.jpg
This document is page 3 (Table of Authorities) of a legal filing (Document 126) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists legal precedents (cases) and statutes cited in the brief, including Supreme Court cases like Duren v. Missouri and Second Circuit cases like United States v. Jackman. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002323.
DOJ-OGR-00002323(1).jpg
This document is page 'ii' (labeled Page 3 of 13 in the PDF) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (Cases) and Statutes cited elsewhere in the filing. The citations heavily reference cases involving jury selection and fair representation (e.g., Duren v. Missouri, Taylor v. Louisiana), suggesting the main document likely involves a motion regarding jury composition or selection.
DOJ-OGR-00019081.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a pilot named Rodgers. The testimony details flight logs involving a trip from Columbus to Traverse City with 'Jeffrey' and two unidentified passengers. It also covers a maintenance trip to Cahokia, Illinois, specifically for an aircraft registration ('N number') change and carpet installation.
DOJ-OGR-00031290.jpg
This document is a printed page from the Albuquerque Tribune Online, dated March 7, 2006 (with a URL suggesting data from December 2002). It lists sixteen separate donations, each in the amount of $5,000, from various individuals and corporations including Phillips Petroleum, Albertsons, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists. The document bears a DOJ stamp (DOJ-OGR-00031290) and appears to be part of a larger discovery or FOIA release (Public Records Request No.: 17-295) likely related to political fundraising in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00013497.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers regarding a series of flights. The testimony confirms a flight from Columbus to Traverse City carried a passenger named Jeffrey plus two others. It also details a subsequent round-trip flight to Cahokia, Illinois, which had no passengers and was for the purpose of aircraft maintenance, specifically an 'N number change' and possibly new carpeting.
DOJ-OGR-00013436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony confirms that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts were all passengers on specific flights piloted by Rodgers: one on July 8, 2001, from Palm Beach to Teterboro, and another on July 11, 2001, from Teterboro to Cahokia, Illinois.
DOJ-OGR-00010156.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal affidavit signed by David Parse on August 3, 2012. The text discusses a conclusion reached by 'Brune lawyers' regarding an individual named Conrad, determining that Conrad was not a suspended attorney and that the Court did not need to be informed. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp and appears to be an exhibit in a later case.
DOJ-OGR-00010144.jpg
This document is a page from a professional resume or curriculum vitae for Stephen Gillers, filed as part of a court case. It details his public lectures, participation in PBS series on ethics and the Constitution, and extensive legal and public service activities. Key activities include holding leadership and member roles in various American Bar Association commissions and being retained by the New Jersey Supreme Court to analyze lawyer disciplinary systems.
DOJ-OGR-00009477.jpg
This is the second page of a legal document from case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, signed by David Parse and notarized in Illinois on August 3, 2012. The text states that after a paralegal ran a Westlaw report, 'Brune lawyers' concluded that an individual named Conrad was not a suspended attorney and that the Court did not need to be informed. The document was officially filed with the court on August 7, 2012.
DOJ-OGR-00009465.jpg
This document is a page from a professional resume or curriculum vitae for Stephen Gillers, detailing his public lectures and service activities. It lists his participation in PBS series, numerous lectures on legal ethics, and significant roles within the American Bar Association and as a consultant for the New Jersey Supreme Court. The activities span from 1989 to at least 2009, highlighting a long career in legal ethics and public service.
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Fourth Amendment motion by an individual named Maxwell should be dismissed. The core argument is that Maxwell lacks legal standing to make the claim because she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the files of a third-party law firm that represented her adversary in a separate civil litigation. The document cites numerous legal precedents to support the position that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted on behalf of others.
DOJ-OGR-00002943.jpg
This document is page 9 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations alphabetically from 'Miller v. Pate' to 'SEC v. TheStreet.com'. Each entry includes the case name, its legal reporter citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00005602.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that precluding certain statements is the only appropriate remedy for a discovery violation. It cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2)(C) and legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in *Taylor v. Illinois*, to establish that a court has the discretion to impose such a sanction. The argument rests on balancing a defendant's rights against public interests like the integrity of the trial process and the fair administration of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00005597.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 384) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal precedents cited in the main document, including six court cases and three federal rules of procedure and evidence. The cases cited involve parties such as Taylor, Campagnuolo, Katz, Tellier, Tracy, and Wicker against the United States or the state of Illinois.
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues that the defense in a federal criminal case is improperly relying on civil case law regarding pseudonyms for plaintiffs. It asserts that the current case involves crime victims, who are entitled to statutory protections under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, unlike civil plaintiffs who are generally required to identify themselves. The document criticizes the defense for ignoring relevant precedent from high-profile sex abuse trials and for citing irrelevant civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00005846.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defense's claims of prejudice due to the volume of discovery material. The Government asserts that the defense's complaints are exaggerated, that it has clearly identified the evidence it will use at trial, and that suppression of evidence is not the proper remedy. A footnote clarifies that many co-conspirator statements, such as instructions from Epstein, are admissible on grounds other than the co-conspirator exception to hearsay.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018680.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a memoir, blog post, or personal essay included in House Oversight evidence. The author discusses her journey toward feminism, contrasting her privileged upbringing with her mother's experiences in the 1960s and 70s. The text details the author's decision in 2011 to become a rape crisis advocate in Chicago and recounts her mother's traumatic experience seeking medical help after an assault in 1970 without such advocacy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016539.jpg
This document is a page from a Minnesota Law Review article (Vol 103) discussing the complexities of federal versus state jurisdiction in cases of police violence and 'excessive use of force.' It analyzes the high 'mens rea' standard required for federal prosecution and compares the US system to those of Germany, Canada, and Australia. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional inquiry, possibly related to arguments about federal jurisdiction or deaths in custody.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017782.jpg
This document is a court filing containing an excerpt from a 2003 Vanity Fair article detailing Jeffrey Epstein's financial entanglements with Steven Hoffenberg in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It describes schemes involving Emery Freight, Pan Am, Riddell Sports, and Pennwalt, noting that while Hoffenberg was sued and prosecuted, Epstein remained elusive and avoided deposition despite receiving significant payments. The text highlights regulators' difficulties in tracking Epstein and allegations that he used funds from Hoffenberg for investments while claiming they came from a mysterious Swiss banker.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017781.jpg
This document appears to be an excerpt from a Vanity Fair article filed as an exhibit in a 2019 court case. It details allegations made by Steven Hoffenberg regarding Jeffrey Epstein's involvement in financial schemes at Towers Financial, specifically concerning the acquisition of Pan Am and Emery Air Freight using funds illicitly taken from Illinois insurance companies. The text describes grand jury testimony where Hoffenberg claims Epstein acted as the "technician" for these schemes, and includes corroborating statements from other executives like Richard Allen and Daniel Payton.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017728.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 14 of 52 in the specific filing) discussing proposals to amend legal rules to incorporate the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues for amending Rule 2 to ensure fairness to victims and adding a Rule 10.1 regarding notice of proceedings. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as part of a legal argument or evidence file regarding victim rights and notification procedures in the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017229.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or report (possibly by Alan Dershowitz) included in House Oversight materials. It recounts a 'Today Show' interview involving Katie Couric, Alan Dershowitz, and white supremacist Matthew Hale. The text focuses on Dershowitz's constitutional argument for allowing Hale to practice law despite his 'despicable' views, and Hale's admission that using Dershowitz generates publicity for his cause.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026808.jpg
This document is a presentation slide (page 14) from Deutsche Bank Global Public Affairs, authored by Francis J. Kelly. It outlines a schedule of United States primary elections/caucuses spanning from January 18th to March 22nd (likely referencing the 2016 election cycle based on the 'Super Tuesday' date of March 1st). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation involving Deutsche Bank.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017691.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article included in a House Oversight file associated with attorney David Schoen. The text analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that legislative history and judicial precedent (specifically United States v. Kenna) guarantee victims the right to speak orally at sentencing, rather than just submitting written statements. It cites Senators Kyl and Feinstein extensively regarding the congressional intent behind the Act.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017654.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) discussing Rule 11 and advocating for the inclusion of victims' views during plea negotiations. The text argues that prosecutors should be required to notify victims and consider their views on plea deals, noting that the Advisory Committee did not recommend this change at the time. The document bears the name David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of an evidentiary submission regarding the handling of victims' rights, possibly in relation to the Epstein non-prosecution agreement investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity