S.D.N.Y.
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Epstein's lawyers
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of the jury convicting Ms. Maxwell based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, which would be a per se violation of her constitutional rights. The argument is supported by citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00005832.jpg
This document is page 49 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the admissibility of 'Minor Victim-3's' testimony, stating it is necessary to counter expected defenses that the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) played no role in procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein. Footnote 11 provides extensive legal analysis distinguishing this case from precedents (Cummings, Townsend, Mahaffy, Nektalov) regarding 'other crimes' evidence and Rule 404(b), arguing that the abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct proof of the conspiracy rather than a distinct, unrelated crime.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005759.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal precedents cited in the main document, including various U.S. court cases, U.S. Constitutional Amendments V and VI, and Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. The page is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00005759.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019297.jpg
A legal letter dated February 7, 2018, from the law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, representing intervenor Alan Dershowitz in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case. The letter is addressed to attorneys J. Stanley Pottinger, Paul G. Cassell, Sigrid S. McCawley, and Laura A. Menninger. The correspondence begins an allegation that the plaintiff's counsel improperly leaked submissions from a pending disciplinary proceeding to the Washington Post.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg
This document is page 795 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the legal arguments surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and whether the court has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia ('The Kingdom'), Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki. The text details allegations that these defendants provided material support to charities that funded al Qaeda and willfully ignored the threat of Osama bin Laden. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017845.jpg
This document is a page from a Federal Supplement (legal opinion) regarding civil litigation stemming from the September 11 attacks. It discusses motions to dismiss filed by Saudi defendants, specifically Prince Sultan and Prince Turki, as well as the National Commercial Bank, in cases alleging they provided material support to al Qaeda. The text details procedural history involving the transfer of cases between the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York, and mentions a $4.5 billion claim by insurance companies.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017671.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen, who later served as an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. The text is a legal analysis of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, arguing for strict adherence to the 'Nixon factors' (specificity, relevancy, and admissibility) when issuing subpoenas to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' The document includes extensive legal footnotes citing various precedents and was produced as part of a House Oversight Committee investigation (likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity