Nelson
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
McKee
|
Co authors |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Whitmire
|
Co authors |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
030.pdf
This document is a Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law opposing a motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase's board regarding their oversight of Jeffrey Epstein. It alleges that the Board, including CEO Jamie Dimon, ignored red flags about Epstein's sex trafficking and financial crimes (such as massive cash withdrawals) to retain him as a client, failed to implement required BSA/AML monitoring systems, and violated a Deferred Prosecution Agreement related to Madoff. The plaintiffs argue that demand on the board is excused because a majority of directors face liability or lack independence.
2023.10.03%20Response.pdf
In this May 2023 filing to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, a pro se incarcerated Ghislaine Maxwell requests a 180-day stay in her civil suit for indemnification against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell argues she needs time to find new counsel following her previous attorney's withdrawal, citing severe communication restrictions and lack of access to legal resources (computers, state case law) within FCI Tallahassee. She also argues the civil case should be paused pending the outcome of her criminal appeal (2nd Circuit Case 22-14626-CR) and cites a 2002 lawsuit (Shanks v. Wexner) as evidence that Epstein historically indemnified her for legal costs.
EFTA00000136.pdf
An evidence photograph (tagged EFTA00000136) depicting an ornate wooden bookcase filled with various hardcover books. The collection includes titles related to history, politics, art, and sexuality, such as 'The House of Morgan', 'Titan', 'The Great Terror', 'Baroque', and the 'International Encyclopedia of Sexuality'. A leopard print chair is partially visible on the right side of the frame.
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) argues that an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various legal precedents (Nelson, Midland Asphalt, Punn) to support the argument that her rights to a fair trial can be vindicated after a final judgment or during the criminal trial itself. It addresses Maxwell's concern that unsealing documents in civil cases might prejudice her criminal trial, asserting she can raise those issues in the criminal case if they arise.
DOJ-OGR-00019359.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (dated September 16, 2020) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061). The text argues that the court order denying Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not eligible for interlocutory appeal. It addresses Maxwell's concern that her inability to use criminal discovery in civil litigation might lead to the unsealing of civil documents, potentially prejudicing her criminal trial, by stating she can raise these prejudice issues during the criminal trial itself.
DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. It cites multiple legal precedents to underscore the critical importance of the voir dire process, which must provide defendants with a full and fair opportunity to uncover potential juror bias. The text establishes that ensuring an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of constitutional law and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a brief or opinion, dated October 2, 2020. It argues against allowing an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal from a person named Maxwell regarding a Protective Order. The text cites several legal precedents (Mohawk, Pappas, Van Cauwenberghe) to support the position that such orders are not appealable until after a final judgment is rendered in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The filing refutes the government's arguments concerning 'finality' and the 'disfavor' of new trial motions. It asserts that the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated, citing legal precedents that establish the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring the conviction to be reversed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026596.jpg
This document is a page of footnotes (numbers 57-72) from a legal or tax analysis document produced for the House Oversight Committee. It cites various tax regulations (Reg 1.752, Reg 1.881), treatises on partnership taxation from 2009, and specific rulings regarding Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and Disregarded Entities (DREs). The content focuses on the technical tax treatment of pass-through entities across various US states.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021093.jpg
A Tatler magazine article (marked with House Oversight ID) profiling the relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and Prince Andrew. It details the frequent travel between Maxwell and Prince Andrew in 2000-2001, often accompanied by Epstein, and investigates Maxwell's financial dependence on Epstein via companies like Ghislaine Corp and New York Strategy Group. The text also highlights a 2003 lawsuit by artist Nelson Shanks involving unpaid fees from Leslie Wexner, in which Epstein and Maxwell were named.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | Received | Leslie Wexner | Nelson | $339,000.00 | Unpaid fee for portrait of Wexner family; Shank... | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity