Brady
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
State of Maryland
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Maryland
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
UN
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Witness testimony |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | About the Participants | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Break-ins at Anne-Marie Brady's office and home. | New Zealand | View |
| 2018-07-13 | N/A | Publication of article 'University Links with China Raise Questions'. | New Zealand | View |
| 2018-02-16 | N/A | Publication of article regarding break-ins linked to work on China. | New Zealand | View |
| 2011-12-08 | N/A | Release of 'States of Bankruptcy' report by Kevin Brady and Jim DeMint. | USA | View |
| 1970-01-01 | N/A | Legal case: Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 | N/A | View |
| 1963-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg
This legal document, dated October 23, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the U.S. Government is improperly withholding critical information. The defense claims the government has not provided details about Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement or meetings held in 2016 to investigate Maxwell. The filing accuses the government of contradicting its earlier court assurances by now disclaiming responsibility for investigative files from Florida that were transferred to the New York F.B.I. office.
DOJ-OGR-00001802.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues against the defense's position that a co-conspirator committing similar crimes without the defendant constitutes exculpatory evidence under Brady. The Government cites multiple Second Circuit precedents to establish that evidence of a defendant's non-participation in other criminal events or lawful conduct on other occasions is irrelevant to disproving specific charged crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00021081.jpg
This legal document excerpt critiques the Second Circuit's interpretation of plea agreements, arguing it misread its own precedent in the 'Papa' case to create an "illogical" rule. This rule is contrasted with United States Supreme Court precedent from cases like 'Santobello' and 'Giglio', which establish that promises made by one prosecutor are binding on other prosecutors within the same office and must be disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00020788.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling on requests made by a party named Maxwell for the immediate disclosure of specific materials from the Government. The requested items include witness interviews, FBI reports, diary pages, and subpoenas. The Court denies Maxwell's requests, reasoning that the Government has affirmed its compliance with its disclosure obligations (under Brady and Giglio), some materials are protected by the Jencks Act, some are not in the Government's possession, and other requests are overly broad.
DOJ-OGR-00022088.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) motion for discovery. The government contends that searching for certain records from the BOP, CIA, and Vice President's office would be an undue burden and that a draft Inspector General report is not subject to disclosure because it is not material to the defense and is protected by deliberative process privilege. The government states the report is not yet complete and the prosecution team has no involvement in its creation.
DOJ-OGR-00022086.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a discovery request from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends that it is not required to produce records from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) because the BOP was not part of the prosecution team or involved in a 'joint investigation'. The document distinguishes the roles of the prosecution (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, DOJ-OIG) from the BOP, noting the Government obtained BOP records via subpoena and was not involved in the BOP's internal investigation into Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00022083.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically an argument regarding the scope of the government's discovery obligations. It cites several legal precedents (Brady, Giglio, Avellino, Kyles, Barcelo) to argue that a prosecutor's duty to disclose information is limited to materials in their possession or the possession of the 'prosecution team' (e.g., investigating officers), and does not extend to information held by separate, uninvolved government entities.
DOJ-OGR-00022082.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Thomas. The Government contends it is not required to produce documents from separate investigations conducted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or other federal agencies into the death of Jeffrey Epstein, because those agencies are not part of the prosecution team and the materials are not in the prosecution's possession.
DOJ-OGR-00022077.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) request for certain records. The government contends that the records—related to BOP staffing, policies, and other employees—are not 'material' to preparing a legal defense under Rule 16. Instead, the government asserts Thomas seeks these records for the impermissible purpose of encouraging jury nullification by arguing that poor conditions at the BOP 'led' to his alleged criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00022076.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that it has fulfilled its discovery obligations under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16. The Government details the materials it has produced, including records surrounding Epstein's suicide and employee files for Noel and Thomas, and cites legal precedents from the Southern District of New York to support its position that the defendant's motion to compel further discovery should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00022075.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 24, 2020, is a portion of a government motion arguing that it has fulfilled its discovery obligations to a defendant named Thomas. The government asserts it has complied with legal standards, including Rule 16 and the Brady rule, by providing substantial evidence, such as hundreds of hours of video surveillance, well in advance of the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00022074.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing dated April 24, 2020. It outlines the Government's legal obligation under the Due Process Clause, as established by the landmark cases Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, to disclose material exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense. The text defines what constitutes "material" evidence and discusses legal precedents that clarify the scope and limitations of this disclosure requirement.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00022064.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 35) in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It outlines the government's legal arguments against providing additional discovery materials to a defendant named Thomas. The arguments assert that the government has met its obligations, the requested materials are not relevant, and they are not required to collect materials from agencies outside the prosecution team.
DOJ-OGR-00022043.jpg
This document is the concluding page of a legal motion (Document 33, Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on April 9, 2020. Attorney Montell Figgins, representing defendant Michael Thomas, requests that the court grant their Motion to Compel, arguing that requested reports are subject to Brady disclosure and should be produced within 45 days of the court's order.
DOJ-OGR-00022042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a broad interpretation of the prosecution's 'Brady obligations.' It asserts that the government must disclose not only admissible favorable evidence but any information that could lead to such evidence, resolving any doubts in favor of disclosure to the defense. The document cites several legal precedents, including Safavian and Paxson, to support the claim that the pretrial standard is simply whether evidence is favorable, not whether it would change the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00022041.jpg
This legal document, a court filing from April 9, 2020, argues that the government must produce all relevant and exculpatory evidence to the defendant, Mr. Thomas, for trial preparation. Citing the Brady doctrine and cases like United States v. Bagley, it asserts that the government has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, including information that can impeach prosecution witnesses, and that the court should compel this discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00021839.jpg
This legal document, page 15 of a filing dated November 1, 2024, argues that the legal precedent in 'Annabi' is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court rulings. It cites the cases of 'Santobello' (1971) and 'Giglio' (1972) to support the principle that a prosecutor's office functions as a single entity for the government, and therefore, promises made by one prosecutor (such as in plea or immunity agreements) are binding on others, even across different districts.
DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been struck for cause due to bias revealed in press statements. It cites legal precedent, primarily the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough and the Second Circuit's test in United States v. Stewart, to assert that a new trial can be granted based on a juror's inaccurate voir dire response, even if the response was not deliberately dishonest. The document contends that the key is whether the juror was actually biased and whether a correct answer would have provided grounds for a challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00009382.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Okula, addresses the judge. He clarifies his team's actions after receiving a note, explaining they did not conduct an independent investigation because they deemed it innocuous and assumed the government was performing its own research. Mr. Okula states that he only learned the government had not done this research upon seeing a motion filed by the defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002710.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on February 4, 2021. The motion requests the court to order the government to disclose favorable evidence and, more significantly, to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements from alleged co-conspirators, particularly the deceased Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that admitting such testimonial statements without the possibility of cross-examination would be highly prejudicial and cites legal precedents like the 'Geaney rule' to support the need for a prior hearing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020658.jpg
This document, stamped with Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020658, is a biographical list titled 'International Associates' found in the 'About the Participants' section of a larger report. It details the academic and diplomatic credentials of ten individuals, predominantly experts in Asian, Chinese, and European foreign relations, affiliated with institutions such as the Hoover Institution, Oxford, and the Woodrow Wilson Center.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020632.jpg
This document appears to be a page (173) from a House Oversight Committee report (Appendix 2) focused on geopolitical issues involving China. It contains citations for works by Anne-Marie Brady regarding Chinese political influence and a section titled 'SINGAPORE AND ASEAN' that analyzes the diplomatic tension between Singapore and China during 2016-2017 regarding the South China Sea disputes. There is no mention of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their associates on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020631.jpg
This page, marked as Appendix 2 of a House Oversight report, details Chinese influence operations within New Zealand's civil society, specifically targeting media and academia. It highlights the CCP's efforts to control Chinese-language media narratives, establish partnerships with English media (Fairfax), and pressure critics like Anne-Marie Brady. The conclusion contrasts New Zealand's lack of regulatory response to foreign interference with Australia's more robust measures. Note: While the user requested 'Epstein-related' analysis, this specific page contains no mentions of Jeffrey Epstein; it focuses entirely on geopolitical influence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity