Government of the United States
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr Perry
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Extradition proceedings requested by the Government of the United States for Ms Maxwell. | United Kingdom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Extradition proceedings for Ms Maxwell requested by the Government of the United States. | United Kingdom | View |
003.pdf
This document is a 'Related Case Statement' filed on May 9, 2023, in the Southern District of New York. It formally links a new shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by the Operating Engineers Pension Fund against JPMorgan's board of directors (Case 1:23-cv-03903) with two existing cases filed by Jane Doe 1 and the US Virgin Islands against JPMorgan (Cases 22-cv-10019 and 22-cv-10904). The filing argues that all cases share a common factual basis regarding JPMorgan's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically alleging that the bank facilitated his abuse and that the board failed in its oversight duties.
2021.12.07%20Notice%20of%20Entry%20of%20Judgment.pdf
This document is a Notice of Entry of Order from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands filed on December 7, 2021. It pertains to three consolidated cases involving the Government of the USVI, the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein (with Darren K. Indyke as executor), and Ghislaine Maxwell (seeking indemnification). The notice lists numerous recipients, including judges and attorneys involved in the proceedings.
2020.09.22%20Reply%20Motion.pdf
This document is a Reply Brief filed by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands supporting its motion to intervene in Ghislaine Maxwell's lawsuit against the Epstein Estate. The Government argues it must intervene to prevent the dissipation of Estate assets, which Maxwell seeks for her legal defense, because those assets are needed to satisfy potential judgments in the Government's separate 'CICO' (racketeering) enforcement action against the Estate. The brief reveals that the Estate is actively paying legal fees for other associates, including an immigration attorney suspected of obtaining visas for trafficking victims.
2020.07.30%20Stipulation%20For%20Extension%20of%20Time.pdf
This document is a legal stipulation filed on July 30, 2020, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands (Case ST-20-CV-155). It represents an agreement between Ghislaine Maxwell (Plaintiff) and the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (Proposed Intervenor) to extend the deadline for Maxwell to respond to the Government's Motion to Intervene until August 17, 2020. The document lists the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and his executors, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as defendants.
2020.07.13%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf
This document is a Motion to Intervene filed by the Government of the US Virgin Islands in a civil case brought by Ghislaine Maxwell against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The Government seeks to intervene to prevent Maxwell from using the Estate's assets to pay for her legal defense (indemnification), arguing that those assets should be preserved to satisfy a potential judgment in the Government's separate CICO (racketeering) lawsuit against the Estate. The document details Maxwell's evasion of subpoenas prior to her arrest, the Government's interest in the Estate's assets for victim restitution and penalties, and the allegation that Maxwell and the Estate are colluding rather than being true adversaries. While flight logs are mentioned as existing evidence of trafficking, no specific flight records are contained within this specific motion.
2022.03.17%20%20Notice%20-%20Notice%20to%20the%20Court.pdf
This document is an opposition brief filed by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands against the Epstein Estate's request for over $112,000 in attorneys' fees. The Government argues that the Estate is not a 'prevailing party' because the underlying court orders were not final judgments, and that the requested hourly rates (up to $1,315/hr) are excessive compared to the local standard of $350/hr. The filing also references the Government's broader CICO lawsuit alleging Epstein used his VI businesses to transport and abuse victims on Little St. James Island.
2021.03.29%20Response%20-%20Response.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by the Co-Executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate (Indyke and Kahn) on March 29, 2021, opposing the US Virgin Islands Government's appeal regarding their failed motion to intervene in probate proceedings. The executors argue the Government's petition is untimely as the original motion was denied over a year prior, and that the Government's emergency motion regarding estate assets is moot because the estate has replenished the Victims' Compensation Program funds. Attached exhibits include the original 2020 opposition brief and a March 2021 press release confirming the sale of Epstein's NYC and Palm Beach properties to fund the compensation program.
033.pdf
This document is a legal declaration by attorney Daniel Mullkoff submitted in the case of Teala Davies v. Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn (Executors of the Epstein Estate). The declaration serves to introduce three exhibits into the court record: Epstein's Last Will and Testament (dated Aug 8, 2019), a complaint filed by the US Virgin Islands, and an Affidavit of Service from the case Araoz v. Epstein. The declaration opposes the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
EFTA00031972.pdf
This document is an email header dated April 1, 2020, sent between officials at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The subject line 'Call with USVI (Epstein)' indicates ongoing communication or coordination with United States Virgin Islands authorities regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case or estate, occurring several months after his death.
EFTA00023782.pdf
Email from an SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorney to Gary Bloxsome (lawyer, likely for Prince Andrew based on context of 2020 Epstein/Maxwell investigation and MLAT/London references) regarding 'Sensitive Correspondence.' The email provides a blank proffer agreement, outlines the legal elements of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. ยง 1001, and discusses protections under the MLAT process for a potential voluntary interview. It also confirms a negotiation period extension until August 10, 2020.
EFTA00018778.pdf
This document is the First Amended Complaint filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and associated entities and individuals. It details Epstein's residency in the Virgin Islands, his status as a registered sex offender, his death, and the complex web of corporations and trusts he used to conceal assets and facilitate criminal activities, including the trafficking and sexual abuse of women and underage girls on Little St. James and Great St. James. The complaint outlines the substantial value of Epstein's estate and assets located globally, as well as the roles of his co-executors, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn.
DOJ-OGR-00001208.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal opinion written by David Perry QC of 6KBW College Hill, dated December 17, 2020. It analyzes UK extradition law, specifically concluding that no bars to extradition (such as asylum or national security) apply to Ms. Maxwell. It also discusses the rarity of the Secretary of State refusing extradition (citing the Gary McKinnon case) and notes that contested extradition cases typically conclude within two years.
DOJ-OGR-00002229(1).jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, and authored by David Perry QC, analyzes the legal framework for extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States, specifically concerning Ms Maxwell. It argues that none of the statutory bars to extradition apply to her case and highlights the rarity of the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition, citing the past case of Gary McKinnon as an example that is no longer applicable. The document notes that the purpose of the Extradition Act 2003 is to streamline and facilitate extradition, with most cases concluding within two years.
DOJ-OGR-00002115.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing (Document 97-21) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (indicated by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the 'Practical Experience' of a legal expert named Mr. Perry, specifically focusing on his history with high-profile extradition cases involving the US, UK, and Russia. The document lists specific case citations where Mr. Perry represented various parties, including the US Government, the Governor of the Cayman Islands, and individual defendants resisting extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002107.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues for the extradition of Ms. Maxwell to the United States. It contends that a U.S. trial would best serve the interests of the victims and that it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully oppose extradition on the grounds of her physical or mental health, as the legal threshold for such an argument is exceptionally high.
DOJ-OGR-00002106.jpg
This page is part of a legal filing (Document 97-21) filed on December 14, 2020, analyzing the likelihood of Ghislaine Maxwell successfully contesting extradition under UK law. The text argues that Maxwell cannot rely on 'passage of time' or 'forum' bars to prevent extradition, citing that while some conduct occurred in London, the majority of harm occurred in the US. It heavily references the Extradition Act 2003 and various legal precedents (Tollman, Gomes, Kakis).
DOJ-OGR-00020126.jpg
This legal document, dated December 17, 2020, analyzes the extradition case of Ms. Maxwell from the United Kingdom to the United States. It argues that legal bars to extradition are unlikely to apply to her case, highlighting that the UK Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is exceptionally rare and that the 2003 Extradition Act is designed to facilitate, not hinder, such proceedings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity