Collins
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Collins
|
Family |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Orianne Collins
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Orianne Collins
|
Family |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228 | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2013-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927 | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
C._Contact_Book_(Redacted).pdf
This document is a heavily redacted version of Jeffrey Epstein's 'Black Book' (contact list) from approximately 2004-2005. It contains an alphabetical listing of high-profile individuals, politicians, celebrities, and business associates, along with sections for specific locations (Palm Beach, NY, Paris, etc.) and services (Massage, Medical, Aviation). The final page contains significant handwritten notes identifying key witnesses, staff members (chefs, drivers), and specific allegations regarding the procurement of women ('Scout for young females') and interactions with underage girls.
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.
Contact Book (Redacted)
This document appears to be a heavily redacted address book or contact list associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It spans from 2004-2005 and contains an alphabetical listing of names, organizations, and businesses, along with sections for specific locations like "France", "Israel", "Kenya", and categories like "Massage", "Medical", and "Travel". The document includes handwritten notes identifying key individuals, witnesses, and staff members, such as Ghislaine Maxwell, chefs, pilots, and drivers.
DOJ-OGR-00001789.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated October 7, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The text outlines legal precedents determining the scope of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), arguing that the prosecution is not obligated to produce records from other government agencies (like the SEC or components of the DOJ/FBI) unless a specific 'joint investigation' occurred. It cites various cases (Middendorf, Collins, Stein) to establish the criteria for what constitutes a joint investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00020788.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling on requests made by a party named Maxwell for the immediate disclosure of specific materials from the Government. The requested items include witness interviews, FBI reports, diary pages, and subpoenas. The Court denies Maxwell's requests, reasoning that the Government has affirmed its compliance with its disclosure obligations (under Brady and Giglio), some materials are protected by the Jencks Act, some are not in the Government's possession, and other requests are overly broad.
DOJ-OGR-00022302.jpg
This document is a single page from an address book or contact list (page 17, DOJ release). It lists various individuals alphabetically (surnames starting with Co-), including notable figures such as musician Phil Collins and his wife Orianne, and fashion journalist Susannah Constantine. All contact details (addresses and phone numbers) have been redacted with black boxes.
DOJ-OGR-00022103.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in the case of United States v. Thomas (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT). The Court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel disclosure of the Inspector General's report regarding Epstein's death because the report did not exist at the time. Furthermore, the Court rules that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is not considered part of the 'prosecution team' for discovery purposes (Rule 16 and Brady), as there is no evidence BOP officials participated in the criminal investigation leading to Thomas' indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00022084.jpg
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 35) from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 24, 2020. The text outlines legal arguments and precedents regarding the Government's obligation (under Rule 16 and Brady) to review and produce records held by other agencies. It cites multiple cases to establish that the prosecution is not required to search other agencies' records (such as the SEC, PCAOB, or FAA) unless a 'joint investigation' was conducted with that specific agency.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 613) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against 'Juror No. 50's' request to intervene and obtain discovery, citing that the juror has no legal standing and is currently under criminal investigation. The prosecution argues that releasing information would allow the juror to tailor their testimony and prejudice the ongoing investigation into their conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
DOJ-OGR-00009751.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that a court should deny a discovery request from 'Juror No. 50'. The filing asserts that the juror has no legal standing to intervene in the criminal case, citing legal precedent. Furthermore, it reveals that Juror No. 50 is under investigation, and releasing the requested information would prejudice that investigation by allowing the juror to tailor responses and alter the investigation's focus.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
DOJ-OGR-00003148.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defense motion. The Government argues that it is not required to produce pages from a personal diary belonging to a third-party victim because the diary is not in its custody or control. Furthermore, the Government asserts that it has already inquired with the victim, who confirmed that no diary entries exist for the relevant time period in the spring of 1996 when she met the defendant while visiting Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002875.jpg
This legal document, dated March 29, 2021, is a filing from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It clarifies the role of the FBI New York Office in an investigation conducted by the FBI Florida Office, stating that the New York office provided only 'ancillary support' by interviewing four witnesses between 2007 and 2008. The document asserts that this assistance did not make the New York office part of the prosecution team and that such inter-office cooperation is common.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019854.jpg
This document appears to be a diary entry or social column draft (possibly by a high-profile socialite or journalist connected to the Epstein investigation files) recounting events surrounding the 2017 Academy Awards. The narrator describes attending exclusive dinners and parties with high-profile celebrities including Oliver Stone, Mick Jagger, and Casey Affleck. The text details specific interactions, such as Casey Affleck stepping in as the narrator's escort to Guy Oseary's party because 'Damien' was sick, and a brief encounter involving Monica Lewinsky.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020712.jpg
This document appears to be a single page from a larger House Oversight Committee report or exhibit (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020712). It lists '#15 Lily Collins' and attributes an image source to the handle 'yuyamika7'. The page contains a large blank space where an image would presumably be located.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013453.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a diary or a draft of a society/entertainment column found within House Oversight documents (stamped 013453). It details Hollywood events surrounding the 2012 Oscar season, specifically mentioning a flight to LAX on Wednesday, Feb 22 (2012) where the narrator sat with Michael Barker. The text discusses various films (War Horse, The Artist, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) and includes a collage of celebrity photos including Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Prince Albert II.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013435.jpg
This 2011 article from PalmBeachDailyNews.com details the release of Jeffrey Epstein's 'little black book' (address book) during civil litigation against attorney Brad Edwards. The document lists numerous high-profile contacts including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, and various celebrities and Palm Beach socialites. It also mentions allegations by Virginia Roberts (Jane Doe 102) regarding her time with Epstein and Prince Andrew, as well as a financial transaction involving Sarah Ferguson.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029432.jpg
This document is a fundraising update and personal correspondence from Elisa New, a Harvard professor and director of 'Poetry in America', to Jeffrey Epstein. New thanks Epstein for his critical past support and solicits his advice on educational needs, mentioning that 'Larry' (likely Larry Summers) indicated Epstein had views on the subject. The document outlines several upcoming projects, including courses on science and poetry, medical humanities initiatives, content for Chinese learners, and the second season of the television series, listing numerous high-profile participants like Al Gore and Katie Couric.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014143.jpg
This document is a scanned page (numbered 17) from an address book, likely Jeffrey Epstein's 'Little Black Book'. It lists contact information including addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses for various individuals including musician Phil Collins, socialite Susannah Constantine, and media executive Nicholas Coleridge. The entries cover locations in London, New York, Miami, and Spain.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028429.jpg
This document is a political analysis article from 2018 concerning the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It details the political strategies and potential fallout for both Republicans and Democrats following the sexual assault accusation made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The article includes quotes from political figures and commentators, discusses the risks for senators on the Judiciary Committee, and draws parallels to the 1992 confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity