Jones
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Wright
|
Spouses |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-11 | N/A | Arrival of 10 new inmates | Intake | View |
EFTA00033638.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report for MCC New York dated July 23, 2019, covering events from July 22, 2019. It details operational issues including a gang threat ('Macballers') on the 11-South unit, the failure of fire alarms and sprinkler systems requiring a 'Fire Watch,' and significant staffing shortages. The report also lists inmate movements, specifically admissions to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and releases from the facility, along with staffing overtime and leave statistics showing 9 staff members AWOL.
EFTA00033431.pdf
This document is the Daily Lieutenant's Log for the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York for Thursday, July 11, 2019. It details operational events across three shifts (Morning, Day, Evening), including inmate counts, equipment checks (specifically noting a PA system malfunction preventing PREA announcements), and the movement of specific inmates to the SHU, hospital, or intake. Several inmates are named regarding administrative detention or medical transport, and the log notes a lockdown of Unit 9N at 6:30 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00008430.jpg
This legal document is a filing from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, arguing against a defense position regarding witness availability. The prosecution cites the precedent of *United States v. Jones*, where a judge rejected a similar defense attempt to compel the government to immunize a witness. The filing concludes that since the defense had the opportunity to call numerous witnesses, including Virginia Roberts, there is no reason to deviate from the standard jury instruction on the equal availability of witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg
This legal document, dated December 15, 2021, is an argument from Ms. Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial testimony of a witness named 'Jane'. Counsel argues that because Jane denied the substance of a prior statement in court, they should be allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, citing legal precedent. The document concludes by noting that due to time constraints, counsel was unable to meet a 10:15 p.m. deadline to list all such disputed statements.
DOJ-OGR-00000539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The text captures a dialogue between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg. The Court lists various crimes involving minors that carry a presumption of remand. Mr. Weinberg acknowledges the gravity of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein but argues that his case does not fit the typical profile ('heartland') of commercial sex trafficking statutes (1591) which usually involve servitude, enslavement, and pimps.
DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00020988.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 45-page legal filing (Document 657) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on April 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Applicable law' regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically discussing 'multiplicitous' indictments and how courts determine if multiple conspiracy charges constitute the same offense. It cites various Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedents to establish the legal standard for reviewing such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00002303(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is a motion from Ms. Maxwell requesting the Court to dismiss Count One or Count Three of her Superseding Indictment. She argues that these counts are multiplicitous, charging the same offense twice, and thus violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The document cites legal precedents to define multiplicity and explain its dangers.
DOJ-OGR-00002302(1).jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as an index, listing the legal precedents—including court cases, federal statutes, state law, and constitutional provisions—that are cited in the associated legal brief. The authorities listed are used to support the arguments made in the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00010398.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, defends the court's decision to reject the defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues the requested instructions were unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate, particularly the claim that sexual activity outside New York could not form the basis for the charges. The document asserts that the existing jury charge correctly focused the inquiry on the violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, specifically concerning the overt act of transporting the victim, Jane, from Florida to New York for the purpose of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010394.jpg
This legal document is part of a court filing arguing that the government's summation during a trial did not constructively amend the indictment. The prosecution consistently maintained that the defendant and an associate, Epstein, transported underage girls like "Jane" to New York with the intent for them to be sexually abused there. The defense counters that a jury note suggests the conviction was based on intent for activity in New Mexico, not New York, and that the court erred by not providing a supplemental instruction to clarify this point.
DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text contains legal analysis rejecting the defendant's argument that the Court's response to a jury note constructively amended the indictment. It cites various legal precedents (Jones, Lebedev, Muraca) to support the Court's discretion in handling jury inquiries and instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
This legal document page outlines the applicable law concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing multiplicitous charges. It defines a multiplicitous indictment as one that charges a single crime in multiple counts and cites several legal precedents (e.g., North Carolina v. Pearce, United States v. Chacko) to explain that a defendant cannot be punished multiple times for the same offense. The document clarifies the legal standard for a multiplicity claim and the procedural remedies courts should use to protect a defendant's rights.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002836.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against a defendant named Schulte's challenge to the jury selection process. The argument asserts that Schulte fails to prove 'systematic exclusion' because the alleged underrepresentation of minority jurors was due to external factors, not the jury selection system itself, citing multiple legal precedents. Schulte's specific claim that the Government sought an indictment in White Plains to avoid the more diverse jury pool of Manhattan is presented as the core of his foreclosed allegation.
DOJ-OGR-00002706.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is an argument from the defense demanding the immediate production of unredacted reports from the government. The defense contends these reports, held by the FBI, contain exculpatory 'Brady material' and that the government cannot fulfill its disclosure obligations by providing redacted versions. The argument is supported by citations to legal precedents, including Kyles v. Whitley, and a prior ruling from the court on the timing of such disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00005907.jpg
This document is page 40 of a court filing (Exhibit 397-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The content is an excerpt from an academic paper (page 296, likely by S. Craven et al.) analyzing the psychology of sex offenders, focusing on how they manipulate children into feeling guilt, the role of empathy in the grooming process, and the concept of 'cognitive deconstruction' which allows offenders to justify their actions. The document bears a Department of Justice discovery stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017082.jpg
The document is a page from the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011 participant list, bearing the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017082. It provides an alphabetical directory (J through K) of high-profile attendees including corporate executives, politicians (such as Boris Johnson and Paul Kagame), and journalists, listing their roles, organizations, and countries of origin. Of note in the context of Epstein-related inquiries is Scott B. Kapnick of Highbridge Capital Management, a firm with historical ties to Glenn Dubin and Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017827.jpg
An email thread from April 2019 showing Jeffrey Epstein communicating with Steve Bannon and Peggy Siegal regarding upcoming media projects, specifically a Netflix documentary involving Joe Berlinger. Peggy Siegal forwards an inquiry to Epstein asking for advice, while Epstein and Bannon discuss James Patterson's book, the 'Perversion of Justice' reporting, and dismiss Berlinger as a 'hack' and the project as potential 'hagiography'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017565.jpg
This document is a biographical briefing page featuring profiles of scientist Stephen Wolfram and game designer Will Wright. It details their educational backgrounds, career milestones (Wolfram Research, Maxis/EA), and major creations (Mathematica, SimCity, The Sims). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it is part of a larger collection of documents reviewed by the House Oversight Committee, likely related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, though Epstein is not explicitly named in this specific page text.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013123.jpg
This document is page 207 of an academic text discussing the risks of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). It reviews concepts such as Friendly AI, Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV), and Coherent Blended Volition (CBV), citing researchers like Yudkowsky, Goertzel, and Omohundro. It bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013123' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the US House Oversight Committee, likely related to investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's funding of scientific research and connections to academia (e.g., MIT Media Lab).
Netflix/Jeffrey Epstein
Introductory email mentioning Eleanora Kennedy reaching out on his behalf.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity