courts
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Argument that defendants should be able to rely on government promises in written agreements and ... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-01 | N/A | Government applied ex parte and under seal to modify protective orders to permit compliance with ... | Courts | View |
EFTA00037849.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 8, 2019, between the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Assistant United States Attorney's office and Pretrial Services regarding the processing of Jeffrey Epstein. The emails coordinate the transfer of information, including the sealed indictment (19 Cr. 490), Epstein's date of birth (1/20/53), and the Government's intent to seek detention. Notably, it references a search warrant executed 'this weekend' (prior to July 8) at Epstein's residence where 'images' were discovered.
EFTA00035449.pdf
This document is an email chain dated August 12, 2019, two days after Jeffrey Epstein's death. It details correspondence between Judge Richard M. Berman and the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), specifically a Supervisory Staff Attorney. The emails concern the transmission of a letter from Judge Berman and the Warden's subsequent prompt response to the Judge's inquiry regarding case 19 cr 490.
EFTA00030179.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 8, 2019, regarding the case U.S. v. Epstein (19 Cr. 490). The correspondence is between an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Pretrial Technician. The AUSA provides a Government bail memorandum arguing that no conditions of release would ensure the defendant's appearance or community safety. Subsequent emails confirm that arresting agents and a specific officer have been informed of the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00018315.jpg
This document is a court transcript of testimony from a law enforcement officer, identified as Dawson, regarding their participation in a search of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence. The witness names several other officers from the criminal investigation unit who were present, including Detective Joseph Recarey who read the warrant. The testimony details that the search targeted evidence such as massage tables, correspondence, and electronic devices, and describes the initial entry where three unidentified men exited the house.
DOJ-OGR-00001860.jpg
This legal document, filed by BOP Staff Attorneys from MDC Brooklyn, addresses concerns regarding the confinement conditions of inmate Ms. Maxwell. It details her compliance with search procedures, meal schedules, health status (including weight and COVID-19 safety), and access to social and legal communications.
DOJ-OGR-00001707.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 38) dated August 10, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for the pretrial disclosure of the identities of 'Victims 1-3,' citing legal precedents that a defendant's right to prepare a defense outweighs privacy interests when a protective order is in place. The filing asserts that because the victims are now adults and many have already spoken publicly or filed civil suits against Epstein and Maxwell, there is no risk of intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001348.jpg
This document is a letter from BOP Staff Attorneys at MDC Brooklyn addressing the court regarding the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement. It details her compliance with COVID-19 protocols, meal schedules, health status, and access to legal and social communications.
DOJ-OGR-00020435.jpg
This document is a court docket from the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from October 20-22, 2021. It records efforts by media organizations, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to oppose the sealing of jury selection materials, ensuring public access. The central entry is a detailed order by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying the request to seal the materials and outlining the specific procedures and a comprehensive schedule for the upcoming jury selection process, including questionnaires, voir dire, and deadlines for counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00002227.jpg
This document is an Addendum Opinion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It analyzes English extradition law to support the argument that if Maxwell were to flee to the UK, she would almost certainly be denied bail there and her extradition back to the US would be a 'virtual foregone conclusion.' The opinion asserts that a waiver of extradition signed by Maxwell would be highly admissible and relevant in UK courts.
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. ยง 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-00021588.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, discussing the legal definition of 'extensive' criminal activity. The court outlines the scope of the conspiracy, identifying Epstein and the defendant as knowing participants, noting Sarah Kellen joined in 2002, and stating that Virginia and Carolyn recruited minors starting in 2001. It also credits testimony from employee Juan Alessi regarding his role in facilitating massages under the defendant's instructions and identifies Visoski and Rodgers as Epstein's pilots.
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
This legal document argues against accepting a juror's claim of having 'missed' or 'forgotten' a question, labeling it self-serving nonsense. It draws a parallel to bankruptcy law, where untruthful statements are treated severely, citing case law to support the idea that reckless indifference to the truth is equivalent to fraud. The author finds it ironic that the government is excusing 'Juror No. 50's' false answers while being unwilling to afford the same leniency to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00003131.jpg
This legal document page outlines the applicable law concerning the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, specifically addressing multiplicitous charges. It defines a multiplicitous indictment as one that charges a single crime in multiple counts and cites several legal precedents (e.g., North Carolina v. Pearce, United States v. Chacko) to explain that a defendant cannot be punished multiple times for the same offense. The document clarifies the legal standard for a multiplicity claim and the procedural remedies courts should use to protect a defendant's rights.
DOJ-OGR-00020082.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition from France and the United Kingdom is unenforceable and does not mitigate her flight risk. It explains that UK law requires an independent judicial review of extradition and that the process is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to appeal, making it an ineffective guarantee. The document cites several court cases as precedent to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk and is a valid consideration for detaining a defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
This legal document, page 5 of a filing from April 5, 2021, presents the U.S. Government's argument for having legal standing to challenge subpoenas issued to third parties. Citing multiple court precedents (including Nachamie, Cole, and Carton), the Government asserts its legitimate interest in preventing witness harassment, controlling the timing of disclosures (such as Giglio material), and protecting its own communications. The document argues that allowing the Government to intervene is the only way to protect these interests, especially when a subpoena recipient may not be fully aware of the case's context.
DOJ-OGR-00005189.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that presents a legislative history and analysis to argue for a broad interpretation of the phrase "any offense involving sexual or physical abuse." The author cites the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act (SAA) and related congressional hearings to counter what they describe as a narrower definition previously used by courts. The central argument is that the SAA was intended to comprehensively define sexual abuse for federal offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00011562.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 22, 2022, discusses the extensive nature of a criminal conspiracy, identifying Epstein and the defendant as knowing participants. It notes that Sarah Kellen joined the conspiracy in 2002 and that minor victims were recruited through Virginia and Carolyn starting around 2001. The document also details the roles of unknowing participants, such as Epstein employee Juan Alessi and pilots Visoski and Rodgers, whose services were directed by the defendant and were necessary for the criminal scheme.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019592.jpg
This document appears to be page 104 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets,' processed as evidence by the House Oversight Committee. The text details the logistics and deception involved in Edward Snowden's escape from Hong Kong to Moscow, highlighting his financial limitations (blocked credit cards), legal threats (Interpol red alerts), and the involvement of WikiLeaks figures Julian Assange and Sarah Harrison in orchestrating his movement while he used local lawyers like Tibbo as cover. The text does not mention Jeffrey Epstein, though the file metadata includes 'Epst' and 'House Oversight'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017317.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a draft manuscript (Chapter 14) likely written by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. The text discusses the historical evolution of rape laws, contrasting modern legal standards with historical 'male-centered' attitudes found in the Bible and Common Law (citing Matthew Hale). It details how legal barriers previously made prosecuting rape difficult, including requirements for resistance and corroboration.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017147.jpg
The author reflects on the profound influence of Judge David Bazelon, emphasizing his role in raising enduring legal questions and shaping the author's critical view of the judiciary. The text compares this experience with the author's subsequent clerkship under Justice Arthur Goldberg during a historically tumultuous period involving the Kennedy assassination, noting that while the Supreme Court work was more high-profile, the time with Bazelon was more educationally significant.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013386.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing arguing that Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards should be dismissed under Florida's 'sword and shield doctrine.' The text details how Epstein is seeking money damages from Edwards while simultaneously invoking the Fifth Amendment to refuse answering basic discovery questions about his claims that Edwards 'ginned up' allegations or 'fabricated' cases. The filing cites multiple Florida precedents establishing that a plaintiff cannot seek relief while refusing to provide discovery.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024957.jpg
This document appears to be a partial transcript or translation of a media interview with the Ruler of Dubai (referred to as 'Your Highness'), contained within a House Oversight Committee record. The text covers three main topics: UAE government efforts to combat corruption via auditing bodies, a recent state visit by UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan to Dubai, and questions from an Egyptian newspaper regarding the impact of the global financial crisis on Arab sovereign funds. The document ends abruptly with a '[Message clipped]' notation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021830.jpg
This document is a page from a rough draft of a deposition transcript marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp. The dialogue involves an attorney questioning a witness about legal standards, specifically regarding a 'motion to strike' filed by Professor Dershowitz and the ethical requirement for attorneys to have a 'good-faith basis' when asking leading questions. The witness confirms their team's position regarding the motion and agrees generally with the premise regarding good-faith questioning.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity