federal courts
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000949.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges that the defendant, in concert with Epstein and Maxwell, groomed and abused minors, using offers of financial assistance for travel and education as a lure. It further claims that in a 2016 deposition for a civil suit in the Southern District of New York, the defendant repeatedly lied under oath about her involvement. The document then outlines the legal basis for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act, citing relevant case law concerning flight risk and danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00002170.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that explains the Court's decision to detain a defendant pending trial. The Court determined that electronic monitoring would be insufficient and rejected the defense's arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. The document then outlines the applicable law for such a decision under the Bail Reform Act, detailing the Government's burden of proof and the factors considered when a defendant is deemed a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00022035.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated April 9, 2020, related to defendant Michael Thomas (one of the guards charged in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's death). The text argues that Michael Thomas is entitled to the complete Inspector General's Report under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)E, citing various legal precedents (Armstrong, Rigas, McGuinness, Giffen) to define 'material' evidence necessary for defense preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the conduct of Alexander Acosta and the USAO regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) due to legal ambiguities at the time, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing. The report also details how an FBI administrative employee sent misleading form letters to victims stating the case was still 'under investigation' without proper coordination with prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00009209.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Doc 616) from February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that Juror No. 50 deliberately lied on jury selection questionnaires (specifically Questions 25 and 48) regarding his history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse to avoid disqualification. The document cites various legal precedents (Greer, McDonough) to discuss the legal standards for juror bias and the necessity of a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009054.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 613) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose that they were a victim of sexual abuse during voir dire, preventing the defense from using a peremptory challenge to remove them. The document cites legal precedents regarding the Sixth Amendment and the importance of peremptory challenges.
DOJ-OGR-00019867.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, alleges that the defendant (implied to be Maxwell) encouraged victims to accept financial offers from Epstein and participated with him in grooming and abusing minors. It further claims the defendant lied under oath during a 2016 deposition in the Southern District of New York to conceal these crimes. The document then outlines the applicable law for detention under the Bail Reform Act, citing several legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg
This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' made material misstatements by failing to disclose they were a victim of sexual abuse and misrepresenting their social media status. The defense contends that had this information been known, they would have exercised a peremptory challenge to remove Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00003188.jpg
This document details the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation by Acosta and the USAO. While the report concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct, it determines that his decision to use a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) constituted poor judgment due to flawed applications of federalism and insufficient oversight. Additionally, the document addresses interactions with victims, concluding that attorneys did not violate the CVRA as interpreted at the time, though the lack of consultation is noted.
DOJ-OGR-00004609.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. It concludes that while attorneys did not commit professional misconduct regarding the CVRA or victim communications, Alexander Acosta exercised poor judgment by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing and by providing insufficient oversight during the NPA negotiation process.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017759.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 45 of a larger 52-page submission) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing 'Rule 44.1' regarding the discretionary appointment of counsel for victims. It argues that while the CVRA does not mandate counsel, federal courts possess the inherent authority to appoint it in the interests of justice. The document includes extensive footnotes citing relevant case law and concludes with the name of attorney David Schoen (a known Epstein attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a submission to Congress regarding the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017743.jpg
This document proposes an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, suggesting that courts must consider the views of victims before approving a waiver of a jury trial. It provides the text of the proposed rule change and a rationale based on the public interest in jury trials, supported by legal citations and Supreme Court precedents. The page also contains extensive footnotes referencing relevant case law and legal scholarship.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017907.jpg
This document is a page from a Westlaw legal research printout regarding the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539). The page lists legal headnotes defining the standards for personal jurisdiction, conspiracy pleading requirements under New York law, and specific federal jurisdiction rulings concerning Saudi Arabian officials accused of funding terrorism through humanitarian channels. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017907' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a House Oversight Committee investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838.jpg
This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765) concerning the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', dated 2005. It outlines legal headnotes (53-60) regarding the court's decision that allegations against a Saudi Arabian Prince and the Saudi Royal Family—concerning business ties via Saudi Arabia Airlines and charitable donations allegedly funding terrorism—were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a Congressional document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837.jpg
This document is page 772 from Volume 349 of the Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It contains legal headnotes (numbered 44-52) summarizing points of law regarding Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, and Personal Jurisdiction. Specifically, Headnote 45 references litigation involving 'Saudi Arabian Princes' and their alleged involvement with 'al Qaeda' concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, discussing whether the court has personal jurisdiction over them under the Antiterrorism Act. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, suggesting it was part of a production for a Congressional investigation, though the text itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity