Ulbricht
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-10-10 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039 was decided. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2014-10-10 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039 | S.D.N.Y. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 36) from June 9, 2020, associated with Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines legal standards associated with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 regarding discovery obligations, specifically defining 'materiality' of evidence and what constitutes government 'possession, custody, or control.' It relies on legal precedents such as US v. Ulbricht, US v. Abdalla, and US v. Stein to argue the scope of evidence the government must produce.
DOJ-OGR-00003145.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated April 16, 2021. The Government argues that its proposed schedule for providing discovery materials (including Section 3500, Giglio, and Jencks Act information) to the defense is adequate and even exceeds the standard practice in the district for high-profile cases. The Government offers to produce non-testifying witness statements eight weeks before trial and testifying witness materials four weeks in advance, asserting this provides ample time for the defense to prepare.
DOJ-OGR-00003044.jpg
This legal document page outlines the Fourth Amendment's third-party doctrine, which generally holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It cites key Supreme Court cases like Miller and Smith to support this doctrine, while also discussing the narrow exception for cell site location information established in the Carpenter case. The document concludes by emphasizing that a defendant bears the burden of proving, through sworn evidence, that their own rights were violated to have standing to challenge a search.
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-00002891.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity