SNYDER
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR EPStein
|
Communicated with |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-02-23 | N/A | The Hollywood Reporter Nominees Night | Mayor's Backyard (Los Angeles) | View |
| 1982-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 1982-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) | 2d Cir. | View |
Epstein_Part_20_(Redacted).pdf
This document contains a plea agreement for Jeffrey E. Epstein, detailing charges of felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, along with his sentence and conditions. It also includes several handwritten message slips, some addressed to 'Mr. Epstein' or 'Jeffrey' and others to 'Mr. Maxwell' or 'Ghislaine Maxwell', containing phone numbers and short messages.
DOJ-OGR-00015518.jpg
This document contains four phone message slips from a spiral-bound book, dated July 25, 2004, and August 2 (presumably same year). Messages are directed to Jeffrey Epstein and 'Sara'. Key interactions include Ghislaine Maxwell instructing staff (Nicole Hesse) to move framed photos and leaving a message for Epstein demanding he call her. Another message mentions unnamed individuals being 'available all weekend'.
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
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-00003014.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the dismissal of an indictment due to pre-indictment delay, citing numerous Second Circuit precedents (such as Cornielle, Alameh, and Delacruz) to establish that a defendant must prove the Government intentionally delayed specifically to gain a 'tactical advantage.'
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-00002957.jpg
This document is page xxii of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases from 'United States v. Schafrick' to 'United States v. Swanson,' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the main document. The cases cited span from 1972 to 2015 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017783.jpg
This document is a court filing exhibit containing a Vanity Fair article excerpt detailing Jeffrey Epstein's opaque financial dealings in the late 1980s. It describes a complicated investment scheme involving Hoffenberg, Nederlander, and Toboroff, where Epstein allegedly used secret loans and brought in Dick Snyder without full partner knowledge. The text also chronicles the beginning of Epstein's relationship with Leslie Wexner in 1986/1989, noting how executives at The Limited were mystified by Epstein's sudden influence and presence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018011.jpg
This document is a printout of a Vanity Fair article submitted as a court exhibit (filed April 2019). It details Jeffrey Epstein's business maneuverings in the late 1980s, specifically a chaotic takeover attempt of Pennwalt involving partners Nederlander and Toboroff, and a secret loan from Steve Hoffenberg. The text also chronicles Epstein's introduction to retail mogul Leslie Wexner in the mid-1980s, noting that while Wexner praised Epstein's loyalty and intellect, many of Wexner's associates at The Limited were mystified by Epstein's sudden rise and influence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013444.jpg
This document appears to be a social diary or draft article (possibly by Ghislaine Maxwell or a close associate, given the context of the document dump) detailing events during the week leading up to the Oscars in February 2012. It describes encounters with celebrities at the Beverly Hills Hotel and Chateau Marmont, and lists attendees at various high-profile parties including a Hollywood Reporter event and an art exhibition dinner. The document is stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' indicating it was part of a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014235.jpg
This document consists of four telephone message slips from an office setting, dated July 25, 2004, and August 2-3 (year unspecified). The messages are for 'Mr. Epstein', 'Jeffrey', and 'Sara'. Messages for Mr. Epstein are from 'Ms. Maxwell' asking for a call back and from 'Snyder' returning a call; a message for Jeffrey from 'Tatum + Rhianna' notes their weekend availability; and a message for Sara from 'Nicole Hesse' references 'the girls'.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | SNYDER | Investment Pool | $500,000.00 | Approximate amount Snyder wanted to invest. | View |
| N/A | Paid | SNYDER | Hoffenberg | $0.00 | Snyder wrote a check to Hoffenberg to buy out s... | View |
| N/A | Received | Hoffenberg | SNYDER | $0.00 | Hoffenberg paid Snyder off after Snyder wanted ... | View |
| N/A | Paid | SNYDER | Investment Deal | $500,000.00 | Proposed investment amount by Snyder. | View |
| N/A | Paid | SNYDER | Hoffenberg | $0.00 | Snyder bought out some of Hoffenberg's investment. | View |
| N/A | Received | Hoffenberg | SNYDER | $0.00 | Hoffenberg paid Snyder off after Snyder wanted ... | View |
Money owed
Irate calls saying he was owed money.
Owed Money
Irate calls claiming he was owed money.
No Subject
A message for Mr. Epstein from Snyder (phone 914-763-9167) who was 'RETUNING YOUR CALL' (returning your call). The message was taken by 'Ru'.
Returning call
A message was taken by 'Ru' at 5:08 PM for Mr. Epstein from 'Snyder' (phone 914-763-9167). The message states: 'RETUNING YOUR CALL'.
Returning call
A message was taken by 'Ru' at 5:08 PM for Mr. Epstein from 'Snyder' (phone 914-763-9167). The message states: 'RETUNING YOUR CALL'.
Returning Call
"RETUNING YOUR CALL"
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity