Tucker
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Kept in touch |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | WEDDING event | N SALEM | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion about Mr. Tucker and Mr. Epstein staying in touch. | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal decision | Decision in the case United States v. Tucker. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
EFTA00004800.pdf
This document appears to be an inventory or file list, possibly indicating categories of media or documents. It includes various file names (e.g., DSC_0079 mail.TIF, IMG_1988) and some categorical labels like 'LSJ/', 'BOAT', 'PB', 'MISC CLOUDS', and 'WEDDING/TUCKER/N SALEM'. The document also contains the label 'BOOK 17', suggesting it is part of a larger collection.
DOJ-OGR-00022812.tif
This document is a page from a legal transcript, likely an interview or deposition, where Todd Blanche is questioning Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion revolves around Ghislaine Maxwell's connections to various individuals including Mr. Tucker, Mr. Epstein, Kevin Spacey, Naomi Campbell, and former President Clinton, often referencing shared flights or prior acquaintances. Maxwell indicates she knew Kevin Spacey from a flight and that she knew Naomi Campbell before meeting Mr. Epstein and Mr. Clinton, suggesting she may have introduced Epstein to Campbell.
DOJ-OGR-00010699.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two victims, Sarah and Elizabeth, have the right to speak at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. The argument is based on both the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the court's broad discretionary power to hear from victims when determining a sentence. The document emphasizes the importance of victim statements for their own healing and as a source of information for the court.
DOJ-OGR-00010478.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the harsh conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered a mitigating factor for sentencing. It cites multiple precedents from the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) to support the claim that the pandemic, with its associated lockdowns and health risks, has made prison time significantly more punitive than under normal circumstances. The argument is made in the context of a defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to warrant a downward variance in her sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00003057.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on the Fifth Amendment. The central argument is that the evidence, obtained from depositions conducted by the private law firm Boies Schiller in a separate civil case, is admissible because Boies Schiller was not an agent of the Government, and therefore the defendant's statements were not compelled by the state. The document cites multiple legal precedents to establish that the Fifth Amendment only protects against officially coerced self-incrimination.
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing from April 5, 2021, discusses the legal standard for obtaining documents via a subpoena under Rule 17(c). It heavily references the precedent set in 'United States v. Nixon', emphasizing that a request for documents must be made in good faith, be specific, and not constitute a general 'fishing expedition'. The document argues that courts require a stringent showing that the requested materials are relevant, admissible, and specifically identified, rather than just potentially useful to a case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity