England
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002053.jpg
This is a character reference letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated October 28, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request. The anonymous author, a family friend since age 15, describes the Maxwell family dynamic, characterizing Robert Maxwell as narcissistic and controlling while praising Ghislaine's work ethic, intelligence, and caring nature. The letter details the author's long-term relationships with various Maxwell siblings and the mother, Betty Maxwell, noting the author wrote a book for Betty prior to her death in 2013.
DOJ-OGR-00019076.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers. The questioning focuses on Rodgers' knowledge of individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein, including his friends Henry Drecky and Marvin Minsky, and a decorator named Alberto Pinto. The witness confirms knowing these individuals' connections to Epstein but denies awareness of Drecky's or Minsky's alleged academic positions at Yale and MIT, respectively.
DOJ-OGR-00016735.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and several lawyers regarding procedural issues. The topics include a defense subpoena, ongoing negotiations with the government over redactions for exhibits, and a decision by the defense not to pursue testimony from a Mr. Hamilton in England due to technical complications.
DOJ-OGR-00013492.jpg
This document is page 214 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely David Rodgers, Epstein's pilot). The testimony confirms that Henry Drecky and Marvin Minsky were friends of Epstein, though the witness did not know their academic affiliations (Yale and MIT). The dialogue also clarifies flight log initials, identifying 'AP' as decorator Alberto Pinto and 'ET' as Emmy Taylor from England.
DOJ-OGR-00010706.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 675) from June 2022 arguing for the importance of allowing victims to speak at Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing. It quotes Victim Impact Statements from two survivors, 'Sarah' (from England) and 'Elizabeth' (from Philadelphia), who describe the therapeutic value of the trial and the validation of their trauma after decades of silence. The document asserts that public victim statements serve the broader interest of building confidence in the justice system regarding the Maxwell conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00002685.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal defense filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on Feb 4, 2021. The text argues that the indictment fails to establish a conspiracy charge regarding 'Accuser-3' because there is no evidence of interstate or foreign travel (a requirement for federal jurisdiction), noting that the alleged incidents took place in England. Additionally, the defense argues that any charges related to Accuser-3 are time-barred by the statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002680.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from a legal motion filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell on February 4, 2021. The defense requests that the Court strike allegations related to 'Accuser-3' from the indictment, arguing that the alleged conduct occurred in England where Accuser-3 was above the age of consent and did not involve travel. The motion claims the government is improperly using these allegations to bolster its case regarding Mann Act violations involving 'Accuser-1' and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002679.jpg
This is page 4 of a 16-page legal document filed on February 4, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The page, labeled 'iii', is a table of 'Other Authorities' listing legal statutes, including the UK's Sexual Offences Act 2003 and two US federal acts: the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A Department of Justice Bates number is visible at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00002687.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's alleged conduct with 'Accuser-3' in England falls outside the scope of the charged conspiracy. It cites the case 'United States v. Hsia' as precedent for distinguishing between a core conspiracy and separate acts of concealment or cover-up. The document contends that the object of the conspiracy was to cause individuals to travel for unlawful acts with Epstein, and Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 did not further this specific goal.
DOJ-OGR-00002681.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for the removal of allegations concerning 'Accuser-3' from her indictment. The defense contends that these allegations are irrelevant to the charges of enticing travel for unlawful sexual activity, as there is no claim Accuser-3 ever traveled for such a purpose, and that the alleged activity with Epstein was not unlawful because Accuser-3 was over the age of consent in England. The filing asserts that the government's inclusion of these claims is a prejudicial attempt to demonstrate a propensity for wrongdoing, in violation of federal evidence rules.
DOJ-OGR-00017463.jpg
This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Visoski regarding flights on Epstein's planes. The witness admits to not always meeting passengers and being unable to confirm if a specific person named 'Jane' was on certain flights. The questioning concludes with the witness confirming that Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, did fly on Epstein's planes.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019734.jpg
This document is page 246 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets' (likely by Edward Jay Epstein), stamped as evidence by the House Oversight Committee. The text details the aftermath of the Edward Snowden intelligence breach in 2013, describing it as a massive strategic setback for Western intelligence agencies (NSA, CIA, GCHQ). It discusses the strategic implications of the leak regarding Russia and China, and describes the massive damage control efforts undertaken by U.S. and British intelligence officers in Washington, Fort Meade, and Cheltenham.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018586.jpg
This document appears to be an article or essay discussing polygyny, relationships, and HIV prevention strategies (specifically the 'ABC' approach) in Southern Africa. It references a 2004 New York Times Magazine article by Helen Epstein (a public health journalist, not the financier Jeffrey Epstein) regarding fidelity campaigns. The text analyzes cultural shifts regarding monogamy and 'partner reduction' efforts within local churches.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031890.jpg
This document appears to be page 15 of a larger essay or article discussing American foreign policy and the historical nature of revolutions. The text argues against both 'realist' cooperation with despots and 'enthusiast' idealism, positing that most revolutions (citing examples in France, Russia, China, and Iran) result in chaos or new despotism rather than democracy. It specifically contrasts the American and Glorious Revolutions with the failures of others, mentioning the situation in 'Egypt today' (likely implying a date shortly after the Arab Spring) as a negative example. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031760.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a memoir or manuscript included in a House Oversight production. The narrator reflects on the 1960s counterculture, specifically their time teaching at the Free University of New York in 1966 alongside Lyndon LaRouche and Ed Sanders. The text mentions sarcastic allegations of brainwashing at the Tavistock Institute and references the 'levitation of the Pentagon' in 1967.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022172.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' (pages 274-275) stamped as a House Oversight exhibit. It details Ghislaine Maxwell's social life and environmental advocacy (TerraMar Project) following Jeffrey Epstein's initial legal troubles, as well as the defamation lawsuit filed against her by Virginia Roberts in 2015-2016. The text also briefly mentions Prince Andrew and the demolition of his Sunninghill Park estate in January 2016.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022117.jpg
This document is page 150 from a James Patterson book, stamped as a House Oversight exhibit. It narrates Graydon Carter (Vanity Fair editor) arriving at the Condé Nast building to review a story by a journalist named Ward about Jeffrey Epstein. The text describes Epstein's NYC townhouse in bizarre detail, noting 'menservants' in white gloves and a hallway decorated with framed eyeballs imported from England. It also includes two photos: one of Epstein in 1969 and another related to a Palm Beach Police search of his El Brillo Way home.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022006.jpg
This document is page 150 from a book by James Patterson, included as a House Oversight exhibit. It details Graydon Carter's hesitation regarding a story about Jeffrey Epstein written by Vicky Ward (referred to as Ward), noting that at the time, there were only rumors about Epstein's dealings with young women and no criminal investigation. The text includes a vivid description of Epstein's NYC townhouse, mentioning menservants and a hall decorated with prosthetic eyeballs. The page also features two photos: one of Epstein's Palm Beach home during a police search, and a 1969 photo of a young Epstein at Coney Island.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016551.jpg
This document is the final page (42 of 42) of a 2018 Minnesota Law Review article discussing the legal theory of 'underenforcement,' particularly regarding sexual assault crimes and police violence. It compares U.S. federal oversight and local prosecution to systems in England and Canada. The text concludes that current safeguards are insufficient for marginalized victim groups. The document contains the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' at the bottom and bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was included as an exhibit in a congressional inquiry, likely related to Schoen's representation of high-profile clients.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016540.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103, p. 904) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The text discusses the legal theory of 'federal redundancy' and the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine (citing Gamble v. United States), arguing that federal prosecutors serve as a check on local prosecutors in cases of police misconduct. While the text focuses on police violence and double jeopardy laws, its inclusion in this production is likely relevant to legal arguments surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement and whether federal charges could supersede state agreements.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016532.jpg
This page from the Minnesota Law Review discusses the pros and cons of federalism-based enforcement redundancy in criminal law, specifically comparing it to private prosecution and administrative review. It argues that while federalism offers a check on state underenforcement, it relies heavily on the discretion of federal prosecutors rather than private victims. The text is heavily footnoted with references to UK and Canadian case law regarding prosecutorial oversight.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016530.jpg
This page from the Minnesota Law Review discusses the legal concept of "dual sovereignty" and the Double Jeopardy Clause, specifically focusing on federal oversight of state prosecution decisions. It highlights the Department of Justice's policy of reviewing state enforcement practices in areas like civil rights violations and notes the upcoming Supreme Court case United States v. Gamble. The footnotes provide comparative legal analysis regarding victim rights to review non-prosecution decisions in Scotland, England, France, and Ireland.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016528.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It contains an excerpt from the Minnesota Law Review discussing 'Declination Oversight,' comparing U.S. and European approaches to prosecutorial discretion and private prosecution. The page includes extensive footnotes citing various state laws (RI, NH, NC, OK, PA) and legal scholarship regarding grand juries and selective prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016524.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103), submitted as an exhibit to the House Oversight Committee by attorney David Schoen (associated with Jeffrey Epstein). The text discusses legal theories regarding the judicial and administrative review of decisions *not* to charge (prosecutorial discretion), contrasting the lack of such mechanisms in the U.S. with their prevalence in the E.U. and England. This legal argument is relevant to the controversy surrounding the non-prosecution agreement in the Epstein case and the rights of his victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016523.jpg
This document discusses the role of private prosecutions as a structural check on district attorneys, similar to grand juries, and argues that their rarity does not justify abolition. It further explores the historical connection between the decline of private prosecution in the U.S. and racial discrimination, noting how legal barriers prevented African Americans from prosecuting crimes or testifying. The footnotes provide extensive comparative legal references to prosecution systems in Germany, England, Wales, Canada, and Australia.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity