Chemical Bank
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994-01-01 | Legal case | Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) | S.D.N.Y. | View |
C._Contact_Book_(Redacted).pdf
This document is a heavily redacted version of Jeffrey Epstein's 'Black Book' (contact list) from approximately 2004-2005. It contains an alphabetical listing of high-profile individuals, politicians, celebrities, and business associates, along with sections for specific locations (Palm Beach, NY, Paris, etc.) and services (Massage, Medical, Aviation). The final page contains significant handwritten notes identifying key witnesses, staff members (chefs, drivers), and specific allegations regarding the procurement of women ('Scout for young females') and interactions with underage girls.
EFTA00013172.pdf
An email dated September 14, 2021, with redacted sender and recipient, discussing a protective order. The email attaches a sealed opinion order from case 20cr330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) authored by Judge Nathan and references legal precedents 'Martindell' and 'Chemical Bank'.
Contact Book (Redacted)
This document appears to be a heavily redacted address book or contact list associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It spans from 2004-2005 and contains an alphabetical listing of names, organizations, and businesses, along with sections for specific locations like "France", "Israel", "Kenya", and categories like "Massage", "Medical", and "Travel". The document includes handwritten notes identifying key individuals, witnesses, and staff members, such as Ghislaine Maxwell, chefs, pilots, and drivers.
DOJ-OGR-00002368(1).jpg
This document is page 16 (filed page 21 of 23) of a defense motion in the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The defense argues for an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged coordination between the government and a redacted third party who provided Maxwell's 2016 civil deposition transcripts to 'stir up a criminal prosecution.' The motion requests the suppression of evidence obtained from this redacted party, specifically the April and July 2016 depositions, and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six.
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
This document is page 18 of a court filing (Document 134) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government/prosecutor engaged in misconduct similar to the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, specifically by misleading the court regarding previous meetings with a firm and encouraging an investigation despite protective orders. The document contains significant redactions regarding the judge's specific comments and rulings.
DOJ-OGR-00002362.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is a motion on behalf of a defendant named Maxwell. It argues that the government colluded with another party, starting in early 2016, to have Maxwell charged with perjury and that the government attempted to deprive her of due process through an ex parte request. The filing references a separate civil case where a similar government request was denied and calls for an evidentiary hearing to investigate potential collusion with the prosecutor's office.
DOJ-OGR-00002361.jpg
This document is page 9 (filed as page 14 of 23) of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses David Boies' frustration that the government initially failed to pursue perjury charges against Maxwell despite his belief they had her 'dead to rights.' The filing argues that a redacted individual (likely a judge, referred to as 'she') modified a protective order based on misrepresentations made by an Assistant U.S. Attorney. A large portion of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002361(1).jpg
This is page 14 of a legal filing (Document 134) from the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government previously failed to act on perjury charges despite attorney David Boies claiming they had Maxwell 'dead to rights.' The filing alleges that a judicial officer (name redacted) was misled by an Assistant U.S. Attorney's misrepresentations, leading to the modification of a Protective Order. A large portion of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002350.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases from various U.S. courts, including District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and cover a range of civil and criminal matters.
DOJ-OGR-00002350(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous court cases that are cited as legal precedent within the larger document. The cases span from 1972 to 2020 and involve various individuals and corporate entities.
DOJ-OGR-00022353.jpg
This document is an internal record listing various entities categorized under 'Tickets', 'ENTERTAINMENT (E)', and 'FINANCE (F)'. It includes names of individuals, hotels, restaurants, clubs, and financial institutions, along with a country and a specific property. The document notes that redactions have been made for personal contact information.
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
This document page is from a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that the prosecution did not improperly use civil discovery materials or mislead the court. The government distinguishes its actions from the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, noting that while AUSA-1 met with the law firm Boies Schiller in February 2016, no action was taken then, and the actual investigation began in November 2018 independent of improper influence.
DOJ-OGR-00003034.jpg
This legal document details a ruling by Chief Judge McMahon concerning a government investigation related to a civil lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. The judge concluded that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, did not improperly instigate the government's investigation and, due to "extraordinary circumstances," granted the government's request to access certain materials previously under a protective order. The ruling permitted the Government to share a specific court order with Boies Schiller to aid its investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, details discussions from an April 9, 2019 hearing. Chief Judge McMahon questions the Government's request for materials from a civil libel case involving Maxwell, expressing concerns about potential criminal proceedings and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The judge also probes into prior contacts between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO-SDNY) and the law firm Boies Schiller related to the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
This court document (page 16 of a filing from June 2021) denies Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the Government deliberately misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon regarding communications with the Boies Schiller firm (BSF). The court rules that the prosecutor's failure to mention a 2016 email/meeting with Giuffre's attorneys during an April 2019 hearing was likely because the question was understood to refer only to the *current* investigation, not all historical contacts. The text references the standard set by *Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.* regarding coordination between civil litigants and criminal prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00004788.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, describes a court proceeding from April 9, 2019, where Judge McMahon granted the Government's application to modify a protective order. The judge found extraordinary circumstances allowed the modification, enabling the Government to obtain information for its investigation into high-profile targets, including Maxwell, without tipping them off. Consequently, the law firm BSF turned over records from a civil litigation, including transcripts of Maxwell's depositions, to the Government.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity