Harvey
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
U.S.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1986-01-01 | Court case | U.S. v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986), which stated that when a U.S. Attorney makes a... | 4th Cir. | View |
| 1986-01-01 | Court ruling | The 4th Circuit court ruled in U.S. v. Harvey. | 4th Cir. | View |
| 1986-01-01 | Legal case | U.S. v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 | Fourth Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022624.tif
This document is a page from an index or keyword list, likely from a legal document, given the 'MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES' branding and the 'DOJ-OGR' identifier. It lists various words and phrases, each followed by a series of page and line numbers where they appear, suggesting it's an index to a larger transcript or report. Key terms include 'government', 'Gulfstream', 'gymnast', and names like 'Golden', 'Goldsmith', 'Greenberg', and 'Harvey'.
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
This legal document discusses the implications of setting aside a Non-Prosecution Agreement, particularly concerning the criminal prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. It cites several legal precedents emphasizing due process requirements for the government to adhere to plea bargains and the necessity of all contracting parties being involved in actions challenging a contract's validity. The document also touches upon the potential jurisdictional issues under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine if the Non-Prosecution Agreement were invalidated.
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
This document is page 45 of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the government must adhere to plea bargains and immunity agreements, specifically referencing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and arguing that 'Count Six' falls within the timeframe of that NPA. It cites case law (Harvey, Annabi) to support the argument that the government is held to a high standard regarding nationwide immunity promises and that new charges must be 'sufficiently distinct' from those covered by a plea.
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated February 28, 2023, presents a series of case law citations to support the legal argument that a plea agreement made by an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) binds the entire United States government. The cited cases establish that the U.S. government is considered a single entity across all districts, and therefore, an agreement made by one of its attorneys in one location (e.g., West Virginia) is enforceable against federal prosecutors in another (e.g., South Dakota).
DOJ-OGR-00021057.jpg
This document is page 'ix' from a legal filing, specifically Document 59 in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous U.S. court cases with their legal citations and corresponding page references within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1926 to 2017 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00021843.jpg
This legal document argues for limiting the application of the 'Annabi' doctrine. It contends that this doctrine, from the Second Circuit, should not apply to a plea agreement originating in the Eleventh Circuit, where precedent dictates that ambiguities are resolved against the government. The document also asserts that the Annabi doctrine should only be applied when new charges are 'sufficiently distinct' from the original ones.
DOJ-OGR-00021841.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that plea agreements made by any U.S. Attorney are binding on the entire U.S. government across all federal districts. It cites several court cases establishing this principle and the related rule that any ambiguities in such agreements must be interpreted against the government. The document concludes by stating that a case named Annabi contradicts this established legal precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016633.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a witness's testimony. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach debate with the judge whether a statement allegedly made by someone named Kate, "It fell into my lap," can be used as evidence to show bias concerning Mr. Hamilton. The judge rules that the statement is permissible for the jury to consider for bias, but prohibits the witness, Mr. Hamilton, from speculating on its meaning.
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The core issue is whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias. The discussion references the legal precedent set in *United States v. Harvey* and focuses on whether a specific statement, "it fell into my lap," is sufficient to create an inference of bias for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014008.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The discussion centers on whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias, specifically in relation to her statement "it fell into my lap." The judge cites the Second Circuit case *United States v. Harvey* to clarify the applicable law on the matter.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013443.jpg
This document appears to be a diary entry or narrative report dated February 22, 2012, detailing the Hollywood social scene leading up to the Academy Awards. The narrator describes a flight to LAX with Michael Barker of Sony Classics, discusses industry gossip regarding Harvey Weinstein, Steven Spielberg, and Woody Allen, and outlines predictions for the Oscars. The document is stamped with a House Oversight identifier, linking it to government investigations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025740.jpg
This document is a digital message log from August 2018 between Jeffrey Epstein (via alias jeeitunes@gmail.com) and a redacted individual. The conversation begins with a speculative list of high-level US government appointees (including Pompeo, Meadows, and Tulsi Gabbard) sent to Epstein. The dialogue shifts to legal concerns, with the redacted sender warning that 'Things will get uglier' if investigators 'get Matt calamari,' while offering reassurance that 'burke' (likely attorney Bill Burck) will provide legal protection.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity