King
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Lindsey
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Democrat Party
|
Political alliance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
B.A. Huberman
|
Co authors |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Benjamin Franklin
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Will Bohlen
|
Professional collaborative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Steptoe & Johnson
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Broomhead
|
Co authors |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Sinai
|
Announcer of bridge to |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | The case United States v. King, where the Second Circuit upheld sealing parts of the record based... | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | King Salman announced the King Salman Bridge to North Sinai. | N/A | View |
| 2016-08-05 | N/A | Receipt of audio recording with Q&A; video recording expected mid-to-late afternoon. | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | N/A | Restructuring of the Saudi Cabinet and government bodies announced. | Saudi Arabia | View |
| 2015-01-01 | N/A | King Salman's accession | Saudi Arabia | View |
| 1978-01-01 | Legal case | Ruling in King v. United States, affirming the denial of a hearing where evidence was 'weakly aut... | Second Circuit | View |
| 1977-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122, 130-31 (2d Cir. 1977) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1784-01-01 | N/A | First publicly acknowledged placebo-controlled trial | France | View |
| 0004-04-01 | N/A | Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. | Memphis | View |
EFTA00027122.pdf
This document is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming the sentence of Frederick Hernandez, a former correctional officer. Hernandez pled guilty to making false statements by falsifying logs regarding inmate safety checks during a shift in which inmate Luis Bent committed suicide. The court upheld a sentencing enhancement, ruling that Hernandez's failure to perform mandatory checks while knowing the inmate was suicidal constituted a conscious or reckless risk of death. This case serves as a legal precedent regarding prison guard liability and falsification of records in the context of inmate suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00000805.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court filing (Document 32) from July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein. The text details the Court's finding that Epstein is a 'flight risk' based on a Pretrial Services Report citing his extensive foreign travel, international ties, unexplained assets, and criminal history. It also outlines the seriousness of the charges against him, specifically the alleged sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach involving the facilitation by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00000493.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The court finds Epstein to be a flight risk based on factors including extensive foreign travel, international financial ties, unexplained assets, and his criminal history. The text also outlines the severity of the charges against him, specifically the sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach, allegedly facilitated by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00021025.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the death of potential witnesses. The prosecution contends that the defendant's assertions about what these witnesses (architects and a housekeeper) would have testified are speculative and unsubstantiated. It further argues that other witnesses, such as Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, were available and did testify about similar matters, like renovations at Epstein's residences, meaning the information was obtainable through other means.
DOJ-OGR-00021535.jpg
This legal document argues that a news article alleging juror misconduct is insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. It cites numerous legal precedents from various courts, including the Second Circuit, which have consistently held that unsworn, hearsay, anonymous, or speculative reports do not meet the high evidentiary standard required to investigate such claims.
DOJ-OGR-00016752.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in which a judge is making rulings on the admissibility of a witness's prior statements. The judge explains the legal basis for their decisions, citing case law, and then rules on specific objections related to the testimony of a witness named Jane. The judge overrules some objections and sustains others based on whether Jane denied or admitted to the statements in question.
DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that the Court possesses the authority to release the sealed Jury Questionnaire and voir dire testimony of Juror 50. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that such a release is permissible but is subject to a balancing test, weighing public access against juror privacy, security, and potential harassment. The document emphasizes that any limitations on access to these materials must be narrowly defined and justified by a demonstrated need.
DOJ-OGR-00008987.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court filing (Document 609) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing various precedents to establish that jurors retain privacy interests after a trial concludes and that jurors face criminal exposure for perjury on questionnaires. It also argues that third parties may intervene in criminal trials to protect their constitutional rights.
DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
This legal document argues in favor of allowing 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case to protect his privacy rights concerning a past sexual assault. It cites legal precedents, including the Supreme Court case *Press-Enter. Co.* and the Second Circuit case *United States v. King*, to establish that jurors have compelling privacy interests that justify sealing records on sensitive personal matters. The filing asserts that intervention will also allow Juror 50 to assert his fifth amendment rights before any inquiry is held.
DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg
This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010757.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 29, 2022, argues for the immediate unsealing of a defendant's motion for a new trial and related documents, such as juror questionnaires. The argument is based on the First Amendment right of public access to court proceedings, which is asserted to be particularly strong when allegations of juror misconduct are involved. The document contends that the public interest in transparency is significant, especially in a high-profile case, and that no sufficient justification for sealing the documents has been provided.
DOJ-OGR-00010408.jpg
This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) rejects the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) argument that she was prejudiced by the inability to call deceased witnesses, specifically two architects and a housekeeper. The court rules that this argument is speculative and unsubstantiated because other available witnesses, including Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, testified at trial covering similar topics regarding Epstein's residences, renovations, and private aircraft.
DOJ-OGR-00009598.jpg
This legal document outlines the Second Circuit's stringent standard for pre-indictment delay, which requires a defendant to prove both improper government purpose and serious, actual prejudice to their defense. It cites numerous legal precedents to emphasize the heavy burden on the defendant and to define substantial prejudice, noting that the mere loss of evidence or witnesses is typically insufficient. The document establishes that claims of pre-indictment delay are rarely successful.
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Government's opposition) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecution argues that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay—specifically citing dead witnesses, lost Epstein employees, and corrupted memories—are insufficient to warrant dismissal based on established legal precedents. The document cites various case laws (Marion, Snyder, Iannelli, King) to support the position that fading memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in delays and do not automatically constitute actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 362) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 20, 2021. The text argues for public access to the jury selection process (voir dire) and juror questionnaires, citing numerous legal precedents including United States v. Shkreli and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court. It asserts that First Amendment rights require these proceedings and documents to be presumptively open to the press and public.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019798.jpg
This document is a page of endnotes (page 310) from a book discussing Edward Snowden, listing sources and citations for Chapter 4 ("Thief") and Chapter 5 ("Crossing the Rubicon"). It references interviews, articles, and transcripts involving Snowden, government officials, and journalists.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031487.jpg
This document is an email chain from August 5, 2016, involving personnel from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson (including Reid Weingarten) and associates of AFSV (Alliance for Shared Values), such as Y. Alp Aslandogan. The discussion concerns the technical logistics and security strategy for distributing a large audio/video file (likely an interview or press material) to reporters. There is a debate between using an FTP site versus a private YouTube link, with Will Bohlen expressing concern about the content being 'sliced up' if made too accessible.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031486.jpg
This document contains an email chain from August 5, 2016, involving attorneys from Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Michael Keough, Reid Weingarten) and other individuals including Y. Alp Aslandogan and Remzi Kulen. The discussion concerns the creation of a transcript from an audio recording by a vendor. The top of the document includes a fragment of a news report regarding an 'attempted coup' (likely the 2016 Turkish coup attempt) and U.S. officials' investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031484.jpg
This document is an email dated August 5, 2016, from Will Bohlen to a group of recipients including high-profile attorneys Reid Weingarten and Jason Weinstein. The email shares a Reuters article reporting that Fethullah Gulen's lawyers fear for his life amid extradition demands from Turkey following the July 2016 coup attempt. While the document content is strictly about Gulen, it is likely part of an Epstein-related document dump because recipient Reid Weingarten was one of Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031483.jpg
This document is an email from a House Oversight Committee production (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031483) circulating a BBC news article regarding the aftermath of the July 15, 2016, failed coup in Turkey. The email includes high-profile legal and political recipients, including Reid Weingarten, who is identified in the article as a lawyer for Fethullah Gulen. The article details Gulen's fear of assassination, the Turkish government's demand for his extradition from Pennsylvania, and the subsequent political purge in Turkey.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031482.jpg
This document is an email chain from August 2016 originating from Michael Keough at Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The email circulates media articles (USA Today, Al Arabiya) regarding the extradition of Fethullah Gulen and comments made by attorney Reid Weingarten defending Gulen against accusations from Turkish President Erdogan. While Reid Weingarten famously represented Jeffrey Epstein, this specific document pertains to his representation of Gulen regarding the Turkish coup attempt.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031480.jpg
An email chain from August 5, 2016, involving attorney Reid Weingarten and Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias jeevacation@gmail.com). The thread originates with Will Bohlen circulating a Wall Street Journal article about Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen and the failed coup in Turkey to a group including Weingarten and Gulen associates. Weingarten forwarded this to Epstein, who replied 'funny can you speak'. Weingarten responded with 'High' importance, though the content of his final reply is redacted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031478.jpg
An email thread from August 5, 2016, involving associates at Steptoe & Johnson LLP and other individuals (including Y. Alp Aslandogan and Remzi Kulen). The discussion concerns the logistics and strategy of releasing an audio/video recording to reporters, debating the security of using an FTP site versus a secured YouTube link to prevent the media from editing ('slicing up') the content. Mention is made of eventually posting content via 'AFSV's channels'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity