district court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Judicial hierarchy review |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Judge juror inquiry |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Weingarten
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Litigant judiciary |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Supreme Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Punn
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Appellate Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant court |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant court motions denied |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror Payton
|
Participant in court proceedings |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-29 | Legal proceeding | The court dismissed the Epstein indictment. | District court | View |
| 2019-08-27 | N/A | District court hearing where over a dozen victims spoke. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2019-08-27 | N/A | District court hearing where Epstein's victims spoke. | New York | View |
| 2019-06-26 | Legal proceeding | The District Court refused to vacate its decision and threatened the Intervenor with sanctions if... | District Ct. | View |
| 2019-02-21 | Court ruling | The district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, finding that the USAO violated the C... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District court issued opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government. | Florida | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District court issued opinion in CVRA case regarding misleading letters. | Federal Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District Court issues opinion finding U.S. violated the CVRA | District Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | Legal opinion issued | District court issued an opinion concluding that the government violated the CVRA by failing to c... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-21 | Court ruling | A district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, finding that the USAO violated the CVR... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-01 | N/A | District court found government violated CVRA by failing to advise victims about the NPA. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal opinion | District court's opinion in the CVRA litigation | N/A | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Does v. United States (Epstein Case) court decision | S.D. Fla. | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | District court conclusion in the Epstein case (Does v. United States) regarding CVRA application. | S.D. Fla. | View |
| 2005-02-07 | N/A | Ruling in United States v. Bin Laden | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1987-01-01 | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in 'In re U.S.', reversing a District Court's order ... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020363.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the government's case against a defendant named Maxwell, stating it is supported by victim testimony and other evidence like flight records. It details that Judge Nathan has denied Maxwell's three bail applications, culminating in a bail hearing on July 14, 2020. Judge Nathan's decision to detain Maxwell was based on the strength of the government's evidence and Maxwell's risk of flight.
DOJ-OGR-00020359.jpg
This document is an affirmation by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, filed on May 27, 2021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The filing formally opposes the renewed motion for pretrial release by defendant-appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. It references a previous court order from April 27, 2021, which had already denied Maxwell's request for bail and upheld the District Court's decision.
DOJ-OGR-00002749.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated March 9, 2021, arguing that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) Third Bail Motion because an appeal regarding her Second Bail Motion is already pending with the Second Circuit. The text details the defendant's offers to renounce French and British citizenship and sequester spousal assets to secure bail, reiterating the court's previous finding that she poses a significant flight risk.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019299.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal letter from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. representing Professor Dershowitz. The letter accuses opposing counsel of selectively leaking false charges to the Washington Post while withholding exculpatory emails from a redacted witness who allegedly tried to sell a story involving 'two presidential candidates, a former president, and one of the world’s leading entrepreneurs' to the New York Post. Celli demands a stipulation to unseal the witness's emails to allow for full public disclosure.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017746.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen, appearing to be part of a House Oversight investigation. It contains an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The text argues that probation officers should be required to seek out victim information for presentence reports and quotes Senator Kyl to support the argument that victims have a broad right to be heard in person during sentencing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017912.jpg
This document contains a segment of a court opinion regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, specifically addressing legal claims under the Antiterrorism Act, RICO, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It outlines headnotes on legal standards for motions for reconsideration and sovereign immunity, and lists numerous attorneys and law firms representing the plaintiffs and defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017911.jpg
This document contains legal headnotes from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', summarizing court rulings related to motions to dismiss claims under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) and RICO Act. The text outlines specific legal standards regarding the insufficiency of allegations concerning financial support for terrorism and the requirement for specific factual grounds in complaints against organizations and individuals.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017908.jpg
This document is a page from a Westlaw legal database printout (dated 2019) referencing the 2005 case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It contains legal headnotes [20-24] summarizing court rulings on Federal Civil Procedure, personal jurisdiction over foreign terrorist entities/charities, and requirements for RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation, potentially serving as legal precedent or research within that file.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
This document is page 765 of a Federal District Court opinion (S.D.N.Y.) dated January 18, 2005, regarding litigation stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001). The text discusses jurisdictional issues concerning a defendant named 'Privatbank' and dismisses claims against individual defendants Horath and Buchmann. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, often associated with investigations into financial institutions (like Deutsche Bank) that may overlap with Epstein investigations, this specific page contains no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017694.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in files produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal arguments regarding the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 60 and 48) specifically concerning the rights of victims to be heard during release hearings and case dismissals. The text critiques the Advisory Committee's approach as an 'empty gesture' and advocates for stronger requirements for courts to consider victims' views.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017278.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or legal review dated April 2, 2012, stamped by House Oversight. It discusses the acquittal of 'Murphy' (likely Sandy Murphy) in the death of 'Binion' (likely Ted Binion), attributing the cause of death to a self-administered heroin overdose rather than 'burking' or a 'cocktail theory.' The text also critiques the district court's handling of evidence regarding Binion's state of mind.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023384.jpg
This document appears to be page 24 of a legal opinion (2012 WL 257568) regarding 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the Second Circuit's review of a district court's dismissal of claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), Alien Tort Statute (ATS), and Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The text critiques the lower court for applying incorrect legal standards regarding 'material support' to al-Qaeda. While the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023384' suggests this was part of a congressional investigation (possibly included in a larger production of documents), the specific text on this page contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their specific activities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023000.jpg
This article from The Virgin Islands Daily News (originally by Miami Herald) reports on Alan Dershowitz's efforts to limit press access to a 2019 court hearing regarding the unsealing of documents in the Epstein/Maxwell sex trafficking case. It details the history of the defamation suit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, the 2017 settlement, and the involvement of high-profile figures like Alexander Acosta and Sarah Ferguson. The article highlights the legal battle between privacy for the accused and the public's right to know, framed by the 'Perversion of Justice' investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014063.jpg
This document is page 84 of a law review article (Vol. 104) by Cassell et al., criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The authors argue that the OLC's interpretation effectively nullifies victims' rights in non-prosecution agreements, explicitly citing the 'Epstein case' as a notable example where this occurred. The footnotes highlight that the OLC opinion was released on May 20, 2011, shortly before the Government filed its response in the Epstein case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity