Baker
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
EILEEN SULLIVAN
|
Co authors |
7
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-24 | N/A | Publication of a New York Times article titled 'Trump Stands by ‘Fantastic’™™ Kavanaugh as He... | Digital (nytimes.com) | View |
025.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the derivative litigation against JP Morgan Chase & Co. It outlines arguments regarding pleading standards, demand futility, and failure to state claims against the defendants, including specific points related to JPMorgan's termination of Epstein as a client and the oversight of internal controls by the board of directors. The document includes a table of authorities citing numerous legal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000483.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the pretrial detention of Mr. Epstein. The prosecution contends that a July 2019 search of his New York City mansion uncovered a 'vast trove' of sexually suggestive photographs of young women and girls, which they describe as 'photographic trophies.' This evidence, combined with his 2008 Florida sex crime convictions, is presented to demonstrate that he poses an 'ongoing and forward-looking danger' to the community and should not be released pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020568.jpg
This legal document is a court docket summary from July 2022, detailing filings and orders from February 2022 in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries, primarily orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan, concern procedural matters like redactions and amicus briefs. The most significant action is the Court's order for an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, a matter which could impact the validity of the trial's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020467.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from February 2022 for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details several procedural orders regarding motions for a new trial, redactions to protect juror privacy, and the filing of an amicus brief. The most significant entry is an order granting an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, while denying a broader hearing involving other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated June 29, 2023, that outlines the legal framework for challenging jurors for cause. It details the different types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—and cites several U.S. court cases to define these categories and establish the criteria for their application. The text also briefly mentions the possibility of a post-verdict hearing for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021654.jpg
This document appears to be page 'vi' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing, specifically Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), filed on June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents involving the United States government against various defendants (Annabi, Archer, Ashraf, etc.) primarily in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document serves as an index for case law citations found later in the full brief.
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-00021532.jpg
This legal document discusses a discrepancy between a juror's (Juror 50) responses on a questionnaire and subsequent public statements. Juror 50 denied being a victim of a crime on the questionnaire but later told media outlets, including The Independent and The Daily Mail, on January 5, 2022, that he had been sexually abused as a minor. Based on these contradictory statements, the Court has decided to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009161.jpg
This legal document argues that the court should deny the defendant's request for a post-verdict hearing and 'pre-hearing discovery' concerning juror conduct. The argument is based on legal precedent, stating that the defendant's evidence—a single anonymous sentence from a newspaper article—is inadmissible hearsay and does not meet the required standard of 'concrete allegations.' The document cites several cases to support the position that courts routinely deny such inquiries to protect the finality of verdicts and avoid the dangers of post-verdict juror scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00009550.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 620) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 25, 2022. The text discusses a post-trial motion regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror lied during voir dire about social media usage. The Court ruled that a hearing is warranted regarding specific questionnaire answers but denied the Defendant's request to probe the juror's social media history, citing that the juror's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps were consistent with their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019813.jpg
This document is page 325 of a book containing endnotes for Chapters 22 ('The Chinese Puzzle') and 23 ('A Single Point of Failure'). It lists citations for information regarding Edward Snowden, cyber security breaches (OPM), Chinese intelligence, and Russian relations, referencing various news articles and reports from 1999 to 2015. The footer indicates the file was part of a House Oversight Committee production ('HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019813') and includes a filename starting with 'Epst_', suggesting it was included in the Epstein investigation discovery materials, though the text itself does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017895.jpg
This document is page 830 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It outlines legal standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass, and negligence in the context of lawsuits related to the September 11, 2001 attacks (specifically the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs). It significantly addresses banking liability, citing case law to establish that banks generally do not owe a duty to non-customers to protect them from the intentional torts of their customers, nor are they liable for injuries caused by money passing through routine banking services. While the document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named on this specific page; however, the legal precedents regarding banking liability are relevant to investigations into financial institutions that serviced high-risk clients.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013687.jpg
This document is page 187 of a scientific text or academic paper discussing the application of computational mathematics and software in neuroscience. It argues for bridging the gap between mathematicians and neuroscientists through accessible software tools. The page contains a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013687' stamp, indicating it was collected as evidence by the US House Oversight Committee, likely in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's extensive funding of scientific research and academic connections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028447.jpg
This document is a JSON-like data structure, likely in Apple News Format, for a New York Times article dated September 24, 2018. The article, authored by Peter Baker and Eileen Sullivan, is titled "Trump Stands by ‘Fantastic’ Kavanaugh as He Seeks G.O.P. Votes" and reports on President Trump's defense of his Supreme Court nominee. The document contains metadata, styling information, the article's title, and a partial caption, but does not contain any information related to Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332.jpg
This document is page 3 of a table of contents for a 2013 publication called 'Tax Topics,' listing articles from 2010 and 2011. The articles cover complex U.S. tax and estate planning subjects, such as specific legal cases, legislative acts, and tax planning strategies (e.g., GRATs). While the document itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein or his known associates, its focus on sophisticated wealth and estate tax law is relevant to the financial activities of high-net-worth individuals, and its identifier 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332' indicates it was collected as part of a congressional investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity