Bortnovsky
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572. | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020778.jpg
This legal document is a court filing addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss charges from an indictment, specifically the Mann Act counts, arguing they lack specificity. The Court denies the motion, concluding that the S1 superseding indictment is sufficiently clear under established legal precedent, which only requires tracking the statutory language and providing the time and place in approximate terms. The Court rejects Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is too vague regarding time periods, conduct described, and the identification of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003137.jpg
This document is page 203 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal arguments citing various precedents (Bortnovsky, Mandell, Levy, etc.) to support the Government's position that providing voluminous discovery negates the need for a 'bill of particulars,' arguing that the defense is not entitled to a preview of the Government's legal theories, only what is strictly necessary for defense preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00002946.jpg
This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00002703.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, is part of a defense argument for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the indictment is vague and lacks crucial information, citing redacted "flight records" and "diary entries" as examples of information that leads to a dead-end. The filing argues that the absence of specific dates for alleged events, such as when 'Accuser-3' provided massages to Epstein, and the failure to explain how Ms. Maxwell's statements constituted perjury, make it impossible for her to prepare an adequate defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity