Cohen
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Fima Shusterman
|
Business associate |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ehud Barak
|
Family |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ania Shusterman
|
Business associate |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Cohen
|
Spouses |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
SDNY Prosecutors
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
SAC Capital
|
Owner executive |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
AARON
|
Creator creation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Trump
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
James Tagg
|
Professional historical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Scott Aaronson
|
Creator creation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Spouse |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hugo Black
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | James Tagg at the Computer Museum | Computer Museum | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Cohens moved their Park Avenue property into a trust to limit tax exposure for their heirs. | Park Avenue, New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cohen v. the United States case involving a jacket reading 'Fuck the draft'. | Court | View |
| 2025-12-01 | N/A | Fima and Ania Shusterman built their taxi empire and helped Cohen expand his. | New York and Chicago | View |
| 2019-07-16 | N/A | Meeting at SDNY offices | SDNY offices | View |
| 2019-02-26 | N/A | Cohen Testimony (referenced for scheduling conflict). | Unknown (likely Washington ... | View |
| 2010-12-20 | Legal case | The date of the cited case, United States v. Cohen. | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 2010-12-20 | Legal case | A legal decision was made in the case of United States v. Cohen. | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 2010-12-20 | Court ruling | A ruling was made in the case of United States v. Cohen. | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 2010-12-20 | Legal decision | The court in United States v. Cohen issued a decision, cited as precedent in this document. | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 2010-12-20 | Legal case | United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) | Northern District of Califo... | View |
| 2010-10-01 | N/A | Frieze Art Fair (8th Edition) | Regent's Park, London | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | The Cohens purchased their Park Avenue home for $5 million. | Park Avenue, New York | View |
| 1995-07-01 | N/A | Trip to China | China / Beijing | View |
| 1949-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of the case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541. | N/A | View |
EFTA00024723.pdf
This document is an email chain from February 26, 2019, between staff and contractors at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). They are attempting to schedule a 'brass meet' (senior leadership meeting) specifically regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The scheduling is complicated by ongoing interviews and the testimony of 'Cohen' (likely Michael Cohen), necessitating a potential split meeting or delay until the following day.
EFTA00021202.pdf
This June 26, 2019 edition of The Daily 202 newsletter highlights Robert Mueller's upcoming congressional testimony regarding his report on Russian interference and potential obstruction of justice. It also covers significant national news including the humanitarian crisis at the US-Mexico border, tensions with Iran, the 2020 Democratic primary debates, and various political developments involving the Trump administration. The document provides analysis, key quotes, and links to further reading on these topics.
EFTA00021168.pdf
This document is an email dated August 4, 2020, containing a digest of press clippings labeled 'SDNY Press Clippings'. The content focuses on news headlines involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, and other legal and political matters relevant to the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The email recipients and sender are redacted.
EFTA00013635.pdf
This New York Magazine article from 2006 explores the lives of various billionaires, including Ron Burkle, the founders of Google and Yahoo, and Jeffrey Epstein. It details Epstein's 'womanizing' lifestyle, his private jet travel with women, and allegations regarding minors at his Palm Beach home. The article also covers Ron Burkle's political connections to Bill Clinton, his private jet '770BB', and his high-profile divorce.
DOJ-OGR-00001769.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Dated September 3, 2020, it formally notifies the court of her intent to appeal the district court's September 2, 2020 decision, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The appeal is directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00001247.jpg
This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's request for bail. The government contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom is not a reliable guarantee against her fleeing the country, as the renunciation could be legally challenged later and does not prevent flight to a third country without an extradition treaty. The filing cites precedent from a similar case (United States v. Cohen) to argue that such offers should be given little weight and that the court's prior decision to detain the defendant should stand.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000873.jpg
This legal document, filed on September 22, 2021, is a court memorandum outlining the Court's rejection of the Defendant's proposed conditions to mitigate her flight risk. The Court finds that the Defendant's offers to renounce her UK and French citizenship and to have a retired federal judge oversee her finances are insufficient to assure her appearance at future proceedings. The Court remains concerned about her ability to delay or resist extradition, especially given her substantial international ties.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002082.jpg
This document is a timeline infographic filed as a legal exhibit (Document 97-18) in December 2020, illustrating the frequency of contact between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team (attorneys Pagliuca, Everdell, and Cohen) and SDNY prosecutors. The timeline covers the period from July 2019 through March 2020, detailing specific phone calls, email exchanges, and in-person meetings at SDNY offices. The graphic aims to demonstrate that the defense was in regular communication with the prosecution leading up to the 2020 dates.
DOJ-OGR-00022302.jpg
This document is a single page from an address book or contact list (page 17, DOJ release). It lists various individuals alphabetically (surnames starting with Co-), including notable figures such as musician Phil Collins and his wife Orianne, and fashion journalist Susannah Constantine. All contact details (addresses and phone numbers) have been redacted with black boxes.
DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (related to Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that protective orders regarding discovery documents in criminal cases are not subject to interlocutory appeal, citing Second Circuit precedents like U.S. v. Caparros and U.S. v. Pappas. The argument specifically asserts that Maxwell's jurisdictional arguments fail to meet the criteria for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019623.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the collateral order exception, which allows for appeals of certain pretrial orders, must be interpreted with 'utmost strictness' in criminal cases. It cites Supreme Court precedent establishing that only four specific types of pretrial orders are appealable under this doctrine. The document emphasizes that the Court has consistently refused to expand this narrow exception, and that any justification for an immediate appeal must be exceptionally strong.
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.
DOJ-OGR-00019580.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on September 3, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is appealing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision from September 2, 2020, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The notice cites several legal precedents to argue that the denial is immediately appealable.
DOJ-OGR-00019414.jpg
This document is a jurisdictional statement from a legal filing, arguing that the court has the authority to review a district court's decision not to modify a protective order. It asserts this jurisdiction under the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites several legal precedents to support its claim. The document outlines the three requirements for an interlocutory order to be immediately appealable under this doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019377.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It presents legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and protective orders in criminal cases, arguing that such orders are generally not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various precedents (Firestone, Caparros, Pappas) to support the argument that restricting the dissemination of discovery materials does not violate First Amendment rights and that challenges to such orders should await final judgment.
DOJ-OGR-00019375.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (United States v. Maxwell). The text outlines legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and 'interlocutory appeals' in criminal cases. It cites numerous precedents (Cohen, Stack, Abney, Sell) to demonstrate that the Supreme Court rarely permits appeals before a trial concludes, arguing that an order is only immediately reviewable if rights would be 'effectively unreviewable' later.
DOJ-OGR-00019374.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the very limited 'collateral order doctrine,' a narrow exception that permits immediate appeal of certain orders if they meet a strict three-part test. The text cites numerous Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' in criminal proceedings to avoid undue delay and piecemeal litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019354.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a filing from September 16, 2020, argues that protective orders regulating the use of documents in a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal. It cites numerous court precedents, including from the Supreme Court, to establish that such orders are not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine and do not constitute an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment. The document asserts that any challenge to a litigant's right to release documents can wait until a final judgment is rendered.
DOJ-OGR-00019352.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020) related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Second Circuit. The text consists of legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and cites multiple Supreme Court precedents (such as Stack v. Boyle and Sell v. United States) to define when pretrial orders in criminal cases can be appealed immediately. The document argues that exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals are rare.
DOJ-OGR-00019351.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the narrow 'collateral order' exception that permits immediate appeals under specific, strict conditions. The text cites multiple Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' to avoid the damaging effects of piecemeal litigation on the administration of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00005575.jpg
This legal document is a page from a government filing arguing in favor of a limited sealing request to protect the identities of minor victims. The government asserts that this request is minimally burdensome and legally sound, citing precedents where victim privacy outweighs public access, especially for evidence not yet shared in open court. It directly refutes the defense's claim that the request violates Second Circuit law by distinguishing the cases the defense relies upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002752.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The prosecution contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships (French and British) does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of her fleeing the country. The document argues the renunciation's validity is unclear and could be challenged later, and it cites a previous case (United States v. Cohen) where similar offers were deemed insufficient to assure the court that the defendant was not a flight risk.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-01-01 | Paid | Cohen | Steve Wynn | $139,000,000.00 | Agreed price for Picasso painting (deal complic... | View |
Reaction to interview
Told Barak his comments were not astute for a Prime Minister candidate.
Statement for Press
Draft of a press statement regarding Jane Doe #3's credibility.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity