Schulte
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
us Gov't
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
United States Government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
court
|
Defendant judge |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Wikileaks
|
Alleged leaker recipient |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Crotty
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CIA
|
Former employment |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding / trial | Discussion of the jury selection process for Schulte's trial, specifically defining the 'relevant... | Manhattan | View |
| N/A | N/A | Indictment of Schulte | White Plains | View |
| N/A | Legal challenge | Schulte's fair cross-section challenge to the jury-selection process, alleging systematic exclusi... | N/A | View |
| 2021-08-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 859 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC | Court | View |
| 2021-03-26 | N/A | Filing of Document 859 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC. | Court | View |
| 2021-03-26 | Court ruling | Judge Crotty rejected the claims and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss in the United State... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2021-03-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 185-1 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC. | Court (Southern District of... | View |
| 2021-03-24 | N/A | Filing date of this document. | Court | View |
| 2021-03-24 | N/A | Court filing of Document 859 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2021-03-24 | N/A | Filing of Document 189 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC. | Court (S.D.N.Y.) | View |
| 2021-03-22 | N/A | Filing of Court Document 359 in Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC | Court (likely S.D.N.Y. base... | View |
| 2020-11-16 | Legal filing | The defendant in United States v. Schulte filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2020-03-09 | Verdict | A jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts (making false statements and criminal contempt of ... | N/A | View |
| 2020-03-09 | Mistrial | The Court granted the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial on the eight charges where the jury could... | N/A | View |
| 2020-02-02 | Trial | Schulte's trial began on eleven national security related charges. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Testimony | A covert CIA officer testified under a pseudonym in the case of United States v. Schulte. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Court ruling | A ruling in the United States v. Schulte case permitted the use of pseudonyms in a national secur... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2018-10-31 | Indictment | The Government obtained a superseding indictment against Schulte, adding two additional counts of... | N/A | View |
| 2018-06-18 | Indictment | An indictment charged Schulte with thirteen counts of espionage and other offenses. | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Arrest | Schulte was arrested on suspicion of leaking national defense information. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008390.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing dated December 15, 2021, details the Court's rejection of the Defense's request to allow a witness to testify under a pseudonym. The Court finds the request untimely, notes that other legal tools like a letter rogatory were available to compel testimony, and distinguishes the case from precedents involving undercover officers whose safety or operational effectiveness would be compromised by revealing their identity.
DOJ-OGR-00020650.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the Southern District of New York for Case 22-1426, detailing legal filings from March 24 to March 29, 2021, related to Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP appearing for victims, the prosecution (USA) and defense counsel filing letters with Judge Alison J. Nathan, and the filing of a superseding indictment against Maxwell. The docket also records a motion to appear pro hac vice and a related $200 filing fee.
DOJ-OGR-00020412.jpg
This document is a court docket log from Case 22-1426, detailing filings and orders from late March 2021 in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include the filing of a superseding indictment by the U.S. government, multiple letters and orders concerning redactions in court documents, motions related to subpoenas, and the payment of appeal fees. The log shows active litigation between Maxwell's defense team, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and the prosecution, all under the supervision of Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00002840.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court filing (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC) filed on March 24, 2021, regarding the case of United States v. Schulte. The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments concerning violations of the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA), specifically regarding the exclusion of inactive voters and the proration of jurors from Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland counties. The Court cites precedent from *United States v. Allen* and Judge Roman to validate the Government's decision to indict in White Plains.
DOJ-OGR-00002833.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court filing (Document 859) dated March 24, 2021, from a criminal case involving a defendant named Schulte (likely Joshua Schulte, though found in a DOJ release). The text outlines the court's rejection of the defendant's arguments regarding venue impropriety, affirming that it is constitutional to indict in one courthouse (White Plains) and try in another (Manhattan) within the same district. The court cites the COVID-19 pandemic delays in Summer 2020 as further justification for the procedural flexibility.
DOJ-OGR-00002830.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing dated March 24, 2021, details a court's analysis of a dispute between the defendant, Schulte, and the Government over the proper 'relevant community' for jury selection. The court sides with the Government, ruling that the appropriate jury pool is the White Plains master wheel, which draws from all counties in the Southern District, rather than just those that supply jurors to Manhattan where the trial is to be held. This decision is based on legal precedent and the statutory composition of the judicial district.
DOJ-OGR-00005402.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, arguing for the use of pseudonyms for testifying victims. It cites several legal precedents from the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, including the cases of Raniere, Martinez, Schulte, and Hernandez, to support the argument that protecting victims from harassment, embarrassment, and encouraging testimony outweighs defense interests, particularly in sensitive cases like sex trafficking and national security.
DOJ-OGR-00002838.jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on March 24, 2021, in the case United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of the defendant's (Schulte) challenges regarding jury selection, specifically concerning the 'fair cross-section' requirement of the Sixth Amendment and an 'Equal Protection' challenge under the Fifth Amendment. The Court dismisses arguments regarding the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American jurors, citing a lack of discriminatory intent and noting that a technical glitch in the White Plains master wheel actually increased minority representation rather than diminishing it.
DOJ-OGR-00002837.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Document 589) filed on March 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC). The text details the Court's rejection of Schulte's arguments that the Jury Plan systematically excludes African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The Court rules that factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency of people moving residences, and the use of voter registration lists do not constitute constitutional violations under the Sixth or Fifth Amendments.
DOJ-OGR-00002836.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against a defendant named Schulte's challenge to the jury selection process. The argument asserts that Schulte fails to prove 'systematic exclusion' because the alleged underrepresentation of minority jurors was due to external factors, not the jury selection system itself, citing multiple legal precedents. Schulte's specific claim that the Government sought an indictment in White Plains to avoid the more diverse jury pool of Manhattan is presented as the core of his foreclosed allegation.
DOJ-OGR-00002835.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on August 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text analyzes a Sixth Amendment challenge regarding jury underrepresentation, specifically examining the 'absolute disparity method' for African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master jury wheel. The Court concludes that the statistical disparities (1.25% and 1.15%) are within tolerated legal limits based on Second Circuit precedents and that Schulte has failed to meet the necessary burden for his claim.
DOJ-OGR-00002834.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 189) in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC), filed on March 24, 2021. The text discusses a legal dispute regarding jury selection venues, specifically distinguishing the current case from *United States v. Johnson*. The court argues that unlike in *Johnson*, Schulte's grand and petit juries were drawn from different courthouses, invalidating his argument regarding the 'relevant community' for the jury pool. The document mentions the 'underrepresentation analysis' and the 'absolute disparity method' for assessing jury fairness. While comprised in a dataset potentially related to Epstein, the text explicitly concerns Joshua Schulte (likely the CIA Vault 7 case).
DOJ-OGR-00002829.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court order filed on March 26, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text addresses a legal dispute regarding 'Underrepresentation' in jury selection, specifically defining the 'Relevant Jury Venire.' The defendant (Schulte) argued for the use of the White Plains 'qualified wheel,' while the Government argued for the 'master wheel.' The Court ruled in favor of the Government, concluding that the White Plains master wheel is the relevant jury venire for the fair cross-section analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text details the court's analysis of Schulte's 'fair cross-section challenge' regarding the exclusion of African American and Hispanic American jurors under the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA) and the Sixth Amendment. While the court acknowledges these demographics are 'distinctive groups,' it rules that Schulte failed to meet the second and third elements of the Duren test, resulting in the rejection of his challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00002824.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (likely an opinion or order) in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). It discusses Schulte's motion to dismiss his indictment regarding the alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks. Schulte argues that the White Plains grand jury venire violated his constitutional rights by failing to represent a fair cross-section of African American and Hispanic American populations. Note: While the prompt identifies this as 'Epstein-related,' the text exclusively concerns Joshua Schulte; however, this document may be part of a larger FOIA production covering SDNY cases or MCC New York issues.
DOJ-OGR-00002823.jpg
This legal document details the procedural history of the criminal case against Schulte, a former CIA employee. It covers his August 2017 arrest for leaking national defense information, subsequent indictments, and a trial in early 2020 which resulted in a guilty verdict on two counts and a mistrial on eight others. The document concludes by noting that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City immediately after the trial caused a suspension of court proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002820.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 26, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, who is presiding over the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution informs the court of a recent ruling in a separate case, U.S. v. Schulte, where Judge Crotty denied a motion to dismiss the indictment that was 'virtually identical' to one filed by Maxwell. The government argues that this precedent supports their position that Maxwell's motion should also be denied.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity