Stewart
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Robert Pattinson
|
Romantic |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Department of Justice
|
Employment |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-09 | Legal case | Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2012-02-01 | N/A | WME Party at Ari Emanuel's estate | Brentwood estate | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal decision | The Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Stewart, which framed a test for undisclosed ju... | The Second Circuit | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case Stewart. | N/A | View |
| 2006-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The Second Circuit affirmed the decision in United States v. Stewart. | Second Circuit | View |
| 2005-03-15 | N/A | Manhattan bash / Cipriani Wall Street event | Cipriani Wall Street, Manha... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case of United States v. Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) was decided. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
025.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the derivative litigation against JP Morgan Chase & Co. It outlines arguments regarding pleading standards, demand futility, and failure to state claims against the defendants, including specific points related to JPMorgan's termination of Epstein as a client and the oversight of internal controls by the board of directors. The document includes a table of authorities citing numerous legal cases.
EFTA00027122.pdf
This document is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming the sentence of Frederick Hernandez, a former correctional officer. Hernandez pled guilty to making false statements by falsifying logs regarding inmate safety checks during a shift in which inmate Luis Bent committed suicide. The court upheld a sentencing enhancement, ruling that Hernandez's failure to perform mandatory checks while knowing the inmate was suicidal constituted a conscious or reckless risk of death. This case serves as a legal precedent regarding prison guard liability and falsification of records in the context of inmate suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00001789.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The text outlines legal precedents determining the scope of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), arguing that the prosecution is not obligated to produce records from other government agencies (like the SEC or components of the DOJ/FBI) unless a specific 'joint investigation' occurred. It cites various cases (Middendorf, Collins, Stein) to establish the criteria for what constitutes a joint investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00021060.jpg
This document is page xii of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court cases and federal statutes (U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code) that are cited as legal precedent or authority within the main document, along with the corresponding page numbers where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00020978.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that addresses and rejects the Defendant's arguments for juror bias. The Defendant claims that Juror 50 was biased due to his personal history of sexual abuse, which she argues resonated with the victims' testimony and improperly shaped his views. The Court refutes these claims, stating that the juror's post-trial interviews do not prove pre-trial bias and that it is a foundational principle for jurors to rely on their life experiences to evaluate evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00020972.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding the impartiality of 'Juror 50'. The Court argues that even if the juror, a victim of sexual abuse, had disclosed this during jury selection, it would not have been grounds for a 'challenge for cause'. The Court found the juror's testimony credible and affirmed that individuals with traumatic experiences can serve as fair and impartial jurors, drawing parallels to jurors in murder and fraud trials.
DOJ-OGR-00015387.jpg
FedEx invoice dated November 25, 2002, for account 1144-2081-6, detailing three shipments involving Jeffrey Epstein and associated entities. Two shipments were sent by Epstein and associates (Dave Rodgees, Cecilia Steen) from New York/Lantana to Jeanne Brennan at Financial Trust Co in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. A third shipment containing 'Parts' was sent by CESCO (address redacted) to 'Aaron' at LSJ, LLC in St. Thomas.
DOJ-OGR-00015386.jpg
This document is a FedEx invoice dated November 25, 2002, detailing three shipments sent from Jeffrey Epstein's residence at 457 Madison Ave, NY. The shipments were sent by associates (Mrs. Sherman, Kate Balerud, Cecilia Steen) to Epstein-affiliated locations in Paris (22 Ave Foch), London (44 Kinnerton St), and St. Thomas (Financial Trust Company). The document lists specific tracking numbers, costs, and delivery signatures, and is marked as confidential evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002363(1).jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing requesting the suppression of evidence and dismissal of certain counts. The argument centers on the crucial role of protective orders in civil litigation, citing legal precedents to assert that these orders encourage full disclosure and must be strictly enforced. The filing applies this principle to the "Maxwell depositions," which it characterizes as highly intrusive, to argue against the use of evidence derived from them.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
This is the concluding page of a legal document filed on April 24, 2020, by the office of United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman. The document argues that the defendant Thomas's motion to compel discovery for a selective prosecution defense should be denied because the defendant failed to meet the required 'rigorous standard'. The filing cites several legal precedents to support the argument that courts routinely prevent defendants from questioning the government's motives for prosecution at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated June 29, 2023, that outlines the legal framework for challenging jurors for cause. It details the different types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—and cites several U.S. court cases to define these categories and establish the criteria for their application. The text also briefly mentions the possibility of a post-verdict hearing for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00021535.jpg
This legal document argues that a news article alleging juror misconduct is insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. It cites numerous legal precedents from various courts, including the Second Circuit, which have consistently held that unsworn, hearsay, anonymous, or speculative reports do not meet the high evidentiary standard required to investigate such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
This document is page 29 of a defense filing (Document 616) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues for a hearing and discovery regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically alleging that a second juror (in addition to Juror No. 50) failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire. The defense cites a New York Times article and statements by Juror No. 50 as evidence, while rebutting the government's objections to post-trial discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009161.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should deny the defendant's request for a post-verdict hearing and 'pre-hearing discovery' concerning juror conduct. The argument is based on legal precedent, stating that the defendant's evidence—a single anonymous sentence from a newspaper article—is inadmissible hearsay and does not meet the required standard of 'concrete allegations.' The document cites several cases to support the position that courts routinely deny such inquiries to protect the finality of verdicts and avoid the dangers of post-verdict juror scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00009159.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against holding an evidentiary hearing to question a jury based on an anonymous, hearsay report. It cites legal precedent from cases like *United States v. Stewart* and *United States v. Guzman Loera* to assert that a high standard of evidence is required for such a hearing, which anonymous tips do not meet. The document details the *Guzman Loera* case as an example where a court denied a hearing despite allegations of juror misconduct published in a magazine article.
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
DOJ-OGR-00009132.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 615) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text outlines legal standards for Rule 33 motions regarding alleged juror misconduct and misrepresentations during voir dire. It cites various precedents (Tanner, McDonough, Shaoul) to establish that courts disfavor post-verdict inquiries and require a strict two-part test to prove that a juror answered dishonestly and that a truthful answer would have resulted in a dismissal for cause.
United States Extradition Treaties
Overview of international extradition processes, treaty updates, and instructions to contact the Office of International Affairs for status updates.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity