Carpenter
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Mohawk Indus., Inc.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gildea
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | The case of Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2220, was decided, creating an exception to the third-party ... | N/A | View |
| 2019-08-17 | N/A | Assistant US Attorney distributes log of served subpoenas and returns via USAFX. | New York | View |
| 2012-01-01 | Legal case | The 9th Circuit court ruled in United States v. Carpenter. | 9th Cir. | View |
| 2012-01-01 | Legal case | The legal case United States v. Carpenter, 680 F.3d 1101, was decided by the 9th Circuit. | 9th Cir. | View |
| 2009-01-01 | Legal case | Decision in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100. | N/A | View |
EFTA00031401.pdf
This document contains an email chain from August to October 2019 between the FBI New York Field Office and the United States Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding the Epstein investigation. The discussion focuses on granting access to 'USAFX,' an FTP site hosting logs and returns of subpoenas served during the investigation. An FBI Special Agent requests access to ensure their case file is complete, and an Assistant US Attorney provides instructions and confirms the availability of subpoena records.
DOJ-OGR-00022099.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 36) from June 9, 2020, associated with Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines legal standards associated with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 regarding discovery obligations, specifically defining 'materiality' of evidence and what constitutes government 'possession, custody, or control.' It relies on legal precedents such as US v. Ulbricht, US v. Abdalla, and US v. Stein to argue the scope of evidence the government must produce.
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
DOJ-OGR-00021704.jpg
This document, a page from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, outlines the statutory definitions of "sexually explicit conduct" and "sexual contact" under 18 U.S.C. § 3509. It cites the 2012 Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Carpenter, to establish that the legal definition of "sexual abuse" is broad, encompassing not only physical contact but also acts of persuasion, inducement, or coercion.
DOJ-OGR-00021654.jpg
This document appears to be page 'vi' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing, specifically Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), filed on June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents involving the United States government against various defendants (Annabi, Archer, Ashraf, etc.) primarily in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document serves as an index for case law citations found later in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00019623.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the collateral order exception, which allows for appeals of certain pretrial orders, must be interpreted with 'utmost strictness' in criminal cases. It cites Supreme Court precedent establishing that only four specific types of pretrial orders are appealable under this doctrine. The document emphasizes that the Court has consistently refused to expand this narrow exception, and that any justification for an immediate appeal must be exceptionally strong.
DOJ-OGR-00019375.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (United States v. Maxwell). The text outlines legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and 'interlocutory appeals' in criminal cases. It cites numerous precedents (Cohen, Stack, Abney, Sell) to demonstrate that the Supreme Court rarely permits appeals before a trial concludes, arguing that an order is only immediately reviewable if rights would be 'effectively unreviewable' later.
DOJ-OGR-00019352.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020) related to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Second Circuit. The text consists of legal arguments regarding the 'collateral-order doctrine' and cites multiple Supreme Court precedents (such as Stack v. Boyle and Sell v. United States) to define when pretrial orders in criminal cases can be appealed immediately. The document argues that exceptions allowing for interlocutory appeals are rare.
DOJ-OGR-00019690.jpg
This document is page 3 of a Second Circuit Court of Appeals order dated November 9, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The court dismisses Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order due to lack of jurisdiction, denies her petition for a writ of mandamus, and denies her motion to consolidate her criminal appeal with the civil case *Guiffre v. Maxwell*. The court cites various precedents to establish that the protective order does not fall under the 'collateral order exception' and that Maxwell failed to prove exceptional circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00003046.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, dated April 16, 2021, which presents an argument against the defendant Maxwell's claim to Fourth Amendment privacy for her deposition transcripts. The text refutes Maxwell's argument by distinguishing her case from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling in *Carpenter*, which concerned the privacy of cell phone location data and surveillance, not deposition testimony given in a civil suit. The document asserts that Maxwell's situation does not fall under the specific privacy protections established in *Carpenter*.
DOJ-OGR-00003044.jpg
This legal document page outlines the Fourth Amendment's third-party doctrine, which generally holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It cites key Supreme Court cases like Miller and Smith to support this doctrine, while also discussing the narrow exception for cell site location information established in the Carpenter case. The document concludes by emphasizing that a defendant bears the burden of proving, through sworn evidence, that their own rights were violated to have standing to challenge a search.
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Fourth Amendment motion by an individual named Maxwell should be dismissed. The core argument is that Maxwell lacks legal standing to make the claim because she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the files of a third-party law firm that represented her adversary in a separate civil litigation. The document cites numerous legal precedents to support the position that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted on behalf of others.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00004794.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, argues that a person named Maxwell has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding documents produced during a prior civil litigation. It asserts that because a protective order allowed these documents to be widely shared among various parties (attorneys, witnesses, court staff), they were not truly private. The document cites Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents, such as Carpenter and Andover, to support the position that such information can be used by the Government in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013708.jpg
This document is page 208 of a scientific text included in a House Oversight production (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013708). The text discusses complex biological dynamics, statistical physics, neurodynamics, and 'power law' analysis, specifically referencing the work of Benoit Mandelbrot. While Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named on this page, the content aligns with his known funding and interest in theoretical physics and neuroscience research.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013689.jpg
This document is page 189 of a scientific manuscript regarding applied nonlinear mathematics, specifically focusing on dynamical systems and computational discoveries. It reviews the history of the field, citing works by Van der Pol, Hodgkin-Huxley, and others regarding neuronal dynamics and oscillators. The document includes a House Oversight Committee stamp, suggesting it was part of evidence gathered during an investigation, likely related to Jeffrey Epstein's funding of or interest in theoretical science/mathematics (specifically citing 'Mandell', likely Arnold Mandell).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity