Thompson
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Thompson, 896 F.3d 155 | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2013-12-03 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Thompson, 13 Cr. 378 (AJN), 2013 WL 6246489 | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2011-05-01 | N/A | Press statement by Kenneth Thompson regarding his client. | America | View |
| 1976-01-01 | Legal case | State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976) | N.J. Super. App. Div. | View |
EFTA00034979.pdf
This document is a Daily Lieutenant's Log from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York for July 31, 2019. It details operational events across three shifts (Morning, Day, Evening), including inmate counts, movements to hospitals and SHU, and facility issues. Notably, the log reports that the fire alarm, pump system, and public address system were inoperable or malfunctioning, requiring a 'Fire Watch' protocol.
EFTA00033653.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report from MCC New York dated August 1, 2019, covering activities from July 31, 2019. It details a significant security breach where inmate Davis was caught with a cellphone and hid it in his body cavity, resulting in his transfer to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) pending FBI referral. The report also highlights significant staffing shortages, noting 9 staff members as AWOL and specific posts on 10-South and 11-South left unassigned due to these shortages.
DOJ-OGR-00000058.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, discussing the interpretation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and plea agreements. It argues that ambiguities in such agreements should be resolved against the government, citing several court cases. The document specifically contends that the NPA in question was intended to bind the Southern District of New York, contrary to a Second Circuit conclusion that suggested it only bound the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00001721.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan in a criminal case, dated August 13, 2020. The Government argues that the defendant's request for more detailed charges is premature and should be handled through a formal motion for a bill of particulars after discovery is complete. The filing also expresses significant concern over the defense counsel's recent actions in a related civil case, suggesting they may have violated a protective order by publicly referencing sealed discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00020791.jpg
This legal document is a court order addressing a discovery request from the defendant, Maxwell, concerning evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Court considers the Government's proposal to disclose this evidence 45 days before trial to be reasonable and denies Maxwell's request for earlier disclosure. However, the Court encourages the parties to negotiate a final schedule and concludes that disclosure six to eight weeks before trial would be appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
This page of a legal document argues against a critique by Maxwell of the 'Annabi' rule. The author contends the rule is sound, prevents defendants from receiving unintended immunity, and is supported by the Justice Manual's policy on multi-district agreements. The document concludes that the court is bound by this rule as it is an established precedent that has not been overturned.
DOJ-OGR-00021653.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' (page 'v') from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 79), dated June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents and case citations used in the main document, including Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. The document bears a DOJ-OGR (Office of General Review) footer, indicating it was likely released via FOIA or a similar transparency process.
DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial due to false answers given by Juror No. 50 during jury selection. The central argument is that Maxwell does not need to prove the juror's falsehoods were deliberate, citing several legal precedents to support the claim that even honest mistakes can warrant a new trial to ensure the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The motion criticizes the government's position as a weak attempt to achieve "finality" at the expense of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror 50, failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection. This omission prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge, and the juror later revealed his bias to the media by stating his memory was 'like a video' and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility. The argument cites numerous New Jersey court precedents where judgments were invalidated for similar juror inaccuracies.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial due to material omissions by a juror, identified as Juror 50. The juror failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection, which prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge and would have been grounds for dismissal for cause. The argument is bolstered by citing the juror's later statements to the media, where he claimed his memory "was like a video" and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility, revealing a bias that tainted the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists numerous legal cases, from 1976 to 2021, that are cited as precedent within the main document. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00003117.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's claims that the indictment is vague or that 'grooming' is not illegal behavior, citing Second Circuit precedents that define grooming as a form of enticement or inducement of minors for illegal sexual activity. The document asserts that the indictment adequately informs the defendant of the charges under 18 U.S.C § 371, § 2422, and § 2243.
DOJ-OGR-00002958.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204) filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous legal cases, primarily with the United States as the plaintiff, along with their full legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited are from various federal courts and span several decades, serving as legal precedent for the arguments made in the filing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029938.jpg
This document appears to be page 7 of an essay or article critiquing the American judicial treatment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The author argues that DSK was dehumanized and turned into a symbol of privilege and 'arrogant France' rather than being treated as an individual entitled to a fair hearing. The text specifically attacks the 'pornographic' nature of DSK's public humiliation and the conduct of the opposing attorney, Kenneth Thompson.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030238.jpg
This document is a printout of an email chain ending on August 14, 2012, originating from Faith Kates. The chain includes a forward from John Connolly, CEO of Castle Connolly Medical Ltd., sent to Ralph Bernstein, Morad Tahbaz, and Joseph Bernstein regarding a subject titled 'Public work vs private AMAZING.' The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030237.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a political commentary or article (marked with Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030237) discussing economic policy and Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged'. It contrasts the idea of abolishing income tax with the policies of the Obama administration and quotes David Kelley, president of the Atlas Society, regarding the timeliness of Rand's ideas and plans for a film adaptation. There is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030236.jpg
This document is an article or essay (stamped with a House Oversight footer) that draws parallels between Ayn Rand's novel 'Atlas Shrugged' and the US economic crisis of 2008-2009. The author criticizes government bailouts (TARP, auto industry financing) initiated under the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration, comparing them to the fictional dystopian regulations in Rand's book. It specifically targets Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and mentions the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030232.jpg
This document is an email dated March 10, 2011, from Ross Gow (ACUITY Reputation Limited) to himself, copying Ian and Kevin Maxwell among others. The email alerts the recipients that the Daily Mail has published 'phone logs' and includes links to an article titled 'Females-Jeffrey-Epstein-The-damning-telephone-log'. The body of the email contains pasted text from a news article discussing controversies surrounding Prince Andrew, specifically his sale of Sunninghill Park to Timur Kulibayev for £3 million over the asking price.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030229.jpg
This document is an email chain from March 2011 involving Ghislaine Maxwell ('Gmax'), her brothers Ian and Kevin Maxwell, and associates like Ross Gow. The content focuses on media handling strategies, specifically analyzing the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) code regarding payments to witnesses in criminal trials. Ross Gow advises the group on how editors can justify payments in the 'public interest' while calling a figure named 'Maz' (likely a journalist) 'devious and cunning'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022336.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a 2013 publication titled 'Tax Topics', listing articles and case summaries from 2004 to 2006. The entries cover a range of U.S. tax law subjects, including estate planning, tax reform acts, and specific IRS rulings and court cases. The document carries a Bates number 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022336', indicating it was part of a larger set of documents produced for a congressional investigation, but its content is exclusively related to tax law and does not mention Jeffrey Epstein or his known associates.
Fw: Public work vs private AMAZING
Original forwarded email in this view
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity