Thomson Reuters
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
JEE
|
Communication context |
5
|
1 |
2022.03.04-3%20Exhibit%202.pdf
This document is 'Exhibit 2' filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on March 4, 2022, in case ST-2021-RV-00005. The content is a Wall Street Journal article from February 9, 2016, titled 'Legal Fees Cross New Mark: $1,500 an Hour'. The article discusses the rising billing rates of top corporate lawyers in the US, citing specific firms like DLA Piper, Proskauer Rose, and Kirkland & Ellis. It serves as evidence of market rates for legal services, likely submitted to support a fee application in the associated court case.
EFTA00032861.pdf
This document is an automated email notification from Westlaw sent on April 11, 2018. It confirms that a user (identity redacted) with the Client ID 'DOJ' (Department of Justice) sent a legal case file, 'U.S. v. Neill' (Citation: 952 F.Supp. 834), to a redacted recipient.
EFTA00031300.pdf
This document is an automated email notification from Westlaw dated November 30, 2021, sent to a redacted recipient (likely associated with the DOJ, based on the Client ID). It conveys a PDF attachment titled 'TITLE_18_INSIDER_TRADING' and cites a Yale Law Journal article (130 Yale L.J. 1828). The document appears to be part of a larger file release (Bates EFTA00031300), possibly related to Department of Justice research.
EFTA00029950.pdf
An email chain between US Attorney's Offices (NY Southern and likely GA Northern) dated March 30, 2021. The officials are discussing a notification from Westlaw regarding an application to unseal civil discovery materials related to Jeffrey Epstein (Reference No. 2018R01618). One official notes it is 'weird' that the order says it is sealed despite being publicly available on Westlaw.
EFTA00029238.pdf
This document is an email chain from April 8, 2021, initiated by Reuters correspondent Jonathan Stempel seeking comment from the government (likely SDNY/DOJ) regarding a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers. Stempel asks about the DOJ's response to claims that disclosing prison condition details at MDC might poison the jury pool. Internal government emails show officials flagging the inquiry, noting it relates to a 'HIPAA issue,' and stating they declined to comment.
EFTA00019095.pdf
An email thread from March 30, 2021, among DOJ officials discussing a Westlaw alert for a 'supposedly sealed order' related to Jeffrey Epstein and Boies Schiller. The thread clarifies that the document is actually a 2019 order recently unsealed in which Judge Netburn denied an application to modify a protective order in a civil case. The participants express confusion initially about why a sealed order appeared public.
EFTA00009796.pdf
This document is a printout from Westlaw containing the text of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705, a federal regulation regarding the "Use of official time" by government employees. It outlines rules preventing employees from using official time for non-official purposes and prohibits superiors from coercing subordinates to use official time for personal tasks. The document includes examples involving the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It appears to be reference material included in a larger legal file, potentially related to an ethics investigation.
EFTA00009794.pdf
This document is a Westlaw printout of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101, titled 'Basic obligation of public service.' It outlines the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, detailing 14 general principles including the prohibition of using public office for private gain, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining impartiality. The document appears to be part of a larger legal file (Bates stamped EFTA00009794-9795), likely included to establish the legal and ethical standards applicable to government officials relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00010125.jpg
This document is a printout from a legal database (Thomson Reuters) containing the conclusion of a New York Appellate Division court opinion ('In re Conrad'). It outlines the suspension of a respondent (Conrad) from the practice of law in New York for an indefinite period, effective retroactively to December 18, 2007. The court denied a cross-motion for reinstatement, requiring an expert's evaluation of fitness for any future motion. The document bears a Department of Justice stamp (DOJ-OGR-00010125).
DOJ-OGR-00010124.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a 2010 New York court decision (Slip Op. 09090) regarding the suspension of attorney Catherine M. Conrad. The text details her suspension due to alcohol dependency and mental infirmity, denying her immediate reinstatement but converting her suspension to medical grounds. While part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cv-03388-PAE) likely related to the Epstein/Maxwell litigation, this specific page serves as a legal precedent or exhibit regarding attorney conduct and fitness.
DOJ-OGR-00009446.jpg
This legal document from a New York court in 2010 details a ruling in the case of "In re Conrad." The court denies the respondent's motion for reinstatement to the practice of law but does so without prejudice, allowing for a future motion. The respondent remains suspended indefinitely, effective nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007, but a previous finding of non-cooperation from that date is vacated.
DOJ-OGR-00009445.jpg
This legal document is a court order from the First Judicial Department regarding attorney Catherine M. Conrad. The court grants the Departmental Disciplinary Committee's motion to suspend Conrad indefinitely due to a medical disability related to her admitted alcohol dependency. The court denies Conrad's cross-motion for immediate reinstatement, stating she has not yet met the burden of proving her fitness to resume the practice of law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031617.jpg
This document is a fragment of an email chain containing signature blocks and legal disclaimers. It includes contact information for Reuters correspondent David Ingram and a recurring legal disclaimer asserting that the information is the property of 'JEE' (Jeffrey E. Epstein). The disclaimer directs recipients to contact 'jeevacation@gmail.com' if the message was received in error. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031610.jpg
This document is an email chain from April 28, 2016, initiated by Reuters journalist David Ingram to attorney Martin Weinberg, seeking comment on a lawsuit alleging Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump committed rape in 1994. Weinberg forwards this inquiry to Epstein (using the alias jeevacation@gmail.com), who then forwards it to Kathy Ruemmler with the complaint attached. A significant portion of the communication between Weinberg and Epstein is redacted as privileged.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031465.jpg
This document appears to be the footer of an email chain. It displays a signature block for an individual at Thomson Reuters (with contact details redacted) followed by a legal disclaimer. The disclaimer explicitly states the communication is the property of 'JEE' (Jeffrey E. Epstein) and directs anyone receiving it in error to contact 'jeevacation@gmail.com', a known email address associated with Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017082.jpg
The document is a page from the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011 participant list, bearing the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017082. It provides an alphabetical directory (J through K) of high-profile attendees including corporate executives, politicians (such as Boris Johnson and Paul Kagame), and journalists, listing their roles, organizations, and countries of origin. Of note in the context of Epstein-related inquiries is Scott B. Kapnick of Highbridge Capital Management, a firm with historical ties to Glenn Dubin and Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017076.jpg
This document is a page from a participant directory for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011. It lists high-profile individuals from various sectors including finance (Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, UniCredit), media (Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters), academia (Harvard, MIT, Oxford), and government. The document contains a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017076' stamp, indicating it is part of a document production for a US House Oversight Committee investigation, likely related to inquiries regarding Jeffrey Epstein's associations, though Epstein is not explicitly named on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017932.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (392 F.Supp.2d 539) concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the court's decision to prioritize personal jurisdiction discovery over subject matter jurisdiction (FSIA) for NCB to avoid intrusion into Saudi Arabia's sovereignty. The conclusion section lists rulings granting motions to dismiss for SHC, Prince Salman, and Prince Naif, while denying others.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017926.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal opinion from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539), printed from Westlaw with a House Oversight Bates stamp. It discusses the dismissal of certain claims (TVPA, negligence) against defendants including the IIRO, SAAR Network, and Tarik Hamdi, while analyzing RICO liability standards. A specific section details allegations against Tarik Hamdi, accusing him of supplying a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden in 1996, which was subsequently used to coordinate the African embassy bombings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017918.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 court opinion regarding terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, specifically addressing the sovereign immunity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi High Commission (SHC), Prince Salman, and Prince Naif under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court discusses whether the 'torts exception' or 'commercial activities exception' to immunity applies, noting that the commercial activities exception is inappropriate and analyzing the requirements for the torts exception and the discretionary function rule. The text concludes that the defendants are considered foreign states for FSIA purposes when acting in official capacities and examines legal precedents regarding jurisdiction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017917.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) analyzing whether the Saudi High Commission (SHC) qualifies as an organ of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is thus entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. The text details arguments regarding SHC's status, funding sources, and structure, citing declarations from Saudi officials and legal precedents like Filler v. Hanvit Bank.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017912.jpg
This document contains a segment of a court opinion regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, specifically addressing legal claims under the Antiterrorism Act, RICO, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It outlines headnotes on legal standards for motions for reconsideration and sovereign immunity, and lists numerous attorneys and law firms representing the plaintiffs and defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017911.jpg
This document contains legal headnotes from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', summarizing court rulings related to motions to dismiss claims under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) and RICO Act. The text outlines specific legal standards regarding the insufficiency of allegations concerning financial support for terrorism and the requirement for specific factual grounds in complaints against organizations and individuals.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017908.jpg
This document is a page from a Westlaw legal database printout (dated 2019) referencing the 2005 case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It contains legal headnotes [20-24] summarizing court rulings on Federal Civil Procedure, personal jurisdiction over foreign terrorist entities/charities, and requirements for RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation, potentially serving as legal precedent or research within that file.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017905.jpg
This document is a page from a 2019 Westlaw printout containing legal headnotes for the 2005 case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details legal arguments regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically affirming that the Saudi High Commission (SHC) and two Saudi officials were entitled to immunity in a lawsuit alleging they funded terrorism. The text discusses the rejection of a specific article offered as evidence by plaintiffs and establishes the legal standard for sovereign immunity regarding foreign agents.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity