The Bar
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
This document is page 18 of a court filing (Document 134) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government/prosecutor engaged in misconduct similar to the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, specifically by misleading the court regarding previous meetings with a firm and encouraging an investigation despite protective orders. The document contains significant redactions regarding the judge's specific comments and rulings.
DOJ-OGR-00009247.jpg
This document is a transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of USA v. Daugerdas, filed as an exhibit in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the cross-examination of Ms. Conrad (a former juror who is a suspended lawyer) regarding her financial status, specifically establishing she had approximately $14,000 in assets versus her claim of indigence for legal counsel. The questioning highlights discrepancies between her court testimony and a sworn affidavit submitted to the Bar disciplinary committee regarding her tax returns and income.
DOJ-OGR-00010153.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) dated April 6, 2012, which lists publications by Stephen Gillers from 2003 to 2006. The articles, published in various newspapers and legal journals, cover topics such as judicial ethics, the Martha Stewart trial, and judicial nominations including those of Miers and Alito. Several publications were co-authored with D. Luban, S. Lubet, and Deborah Rhode.
DOJ-OGR-00009926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, including her assets of approximately $14,000, her past earnings as a lawyer, and her tax filing history. The attorney attempts to scrutinize her financial success and challenges the truthfulness of a prior affidavit she submitted to a disciplinary committee, while Ms. Conrad is often evasive in her answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009474.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a Curriculum Vitae or expert report bibliography for legal scholar Stephen Gillers. It lists his publications (items 122-139) between 2003 and 2006, covering topics such as legal ethics, judicial selection, and high-profile cases like Martha Stewart's trial and Supreme Court nominations. The document bears a header indicating it was filed in 2022 as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330), likely as an exhibit related to expert testimony or legal arguments.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032867.jpg
This document page contains the tail end of an email communication, featuring a signature block for Gerald G. Barton of The Barton Development Group based in Annapolis, MD. It includes standard legal disclaimers noting that the information is 'the property of JEE' (likely Jeffrey Epstein) and directs errors to the email address 'jeevacation@gmail.com'. The document originates from House Oversight Committee files.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032866.jpg
An email thread from May 2016 between Gerald Barton (The Barton Development Group) and Jeffrey Epstein. Barton offers sympathy regarding negative press coverage, quoting Rudyard Kipling's poem 'If' to describe Epstein's resilience, and makes a cryptic reference to the naming of Epstein's airplane reflecting his true feelings. The thread concludes with Barton inviting Epstein to contact him when in the D.C. area.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021829.jpg
This document is a page from a rough draft of a legal deposition transcript (Bates stamped House Oversight). The dialogue involves a witness confirming they previously represented to a court that striking pleadings is a 'drastic remedy' during proceedings involving Professor Alan Dershowitz's application to intervene in a case. The witness also discusses referring parties to the Bar.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021828.jpg
This document is page 5 of a rough draft transcript from a deposition or hearing bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. A former judge is being questioned about their current pro bono work through the University of Utah and their admission *pro hac vice* in the Southern District of Florida. The questioning focuses on the witness's past judicial conduct, specifically whether they ever struck pleadings for being impertinent or scandalous; the witness recalls referring attorneys to the Bar in two such instances rather than striking pleadings immediately.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity