United States
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Party to non prosecution agreement |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Office of the United Stat... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002239.jpg
This document is a page from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for bail, explaining that under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), a presumption in favor of detention applies because the Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim. The document cites case law (Contreras and Jessup) to affirm that an indictment establishes probable cause and places a limited burden on the Defendant to produce evidence to counter the presumption of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002235(1).jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 30, 2020, outlines the legal standard for pretrial detention. It discusses a defendant's right to bail under the Eighth Amendment and the Bail Reform Act, detailing the conditions under which a court can deny bail. The text explains the rebuttable presumption against release for certain offenses and clarifies the respective burdens of proof for the defendant and the government in such hearings, citing several precedent cases.
DOJ-OGR-00002209.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. It lists two legal precedents, United States v. Chen (1992) and United States v. Orta (1985), which are cited on pages 10 and 1 of the main document, respectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from December 18, 2020, in which the Court reaffirms its decision to deny bail to a defendant. The Court rejects the defense's arguments, which cite precedents like the cases of Esposito, Dreier, and Madoff, by highlighting crucial factual differences, such as the current defendant's significant foreign connections and demonstrated sophistication in hiding financial resources.
DOJ-OGR-00002191(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for bail reconsideration. The author contends that the defense is improperly relitigating issues already decided and that the precedent cases cited (Esposito, Dreier, Madoff) are factually different from the current case. The document emphasizes the Court's findings that the defendant has 'significant foreign connections' and has shown 'sophistication in hiding those resources and herself' as justifications for continued detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002147.jpg
This legal analysis, authored by William Julié, discusses the factors making it highly likely that the French government would extradite Ms Ghislaine Maxwell to the United States. It considers the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France, Ms Maxwell's dual American and French nationalities, her ties to the USA, and the unlikelihood of France prosecuting her for crimes committed in the USA, especially if she fled France in violation of bail.
DOJ-OGR-00002146.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion filed on December 14, 2020, by French attorney William Julié in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that French Constitutional law and the 1996 Extradition Treaty with the US do not strictly prohibit the extradition of French nationals, asserting that it is ultimately an executive decision. The author concludes that if Maxwell were to flee to France, the French Investigating Chamber would not be legally bound to block her extradition to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002126.jpg
This document is a legal opinion written by French attorney William Julié regarding the extradition of French nationals to the United States. It was requested by Olivier Laude on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team to support bail proceedings, arguing that French law permits extradition to the US and that Maxwell intends to waive her rights to fight such extradition in French courts. The document serves to assure US authorities that Maxwell would not be shielded by French non-extradition principles if she were released on bail and fled to France.
DOJ-OGR-00002109.jpg
This document is a page from a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, analyzing the legal viability of Ghislaine Maxwell resisting extradition from the UK to the US. It specifically argues that she would fail to invoke Article 6 (fair trial) or Article 8 (private and family life) of the ECHR to stop extradition. The conclusion begins to state that if she absconded to the UK in breach of US bail, she would likely be denied bail there.
DOJ-OGR-00002098.jpg
This document is page 3 of 29 from a court filing (Document 97-21) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 14, 2020. The text asserts that it is highly unlikely Maxwell could successfully resist extradition to the United States regarding charges from the July 7, 2020 superseding indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00002034.jpg
This document is a letter of support for Ghislaine Maxwell, likely submitted for a bail application in her federal case. The author, a close friend, portrays Maxwell as a dedicated family person who was not evading law enforcement but was terrified and hiding from intense, threatening media scrutiny. The author vouches for Maxwell's character and asserts she will face her trial if released, arguing for a non-custodial environment to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002005.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell should be granted bail conditions involving an extradition waiver, citing legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) where such waivers were accepted as assurances against flight. The document states Maxwell has obtained expert reports from French and UK experts (specifically David Perry regarding the UK) concluding that she would be unable to resist extradition back to the US if she fled to those countries after signing a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00001976.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Document 97) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (United States v. Boustani, Bradshaw, Chen, etc.) cited elsewhere in the filing. The page is numbered 'iii' and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00001976.
DOJ-OGR-00001971.jpg
This document is a court order dated December 14, 2020, issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order directs the Defendant to docket redacted documents and exhibits, affirming that the redactions are appropriately tailored to protect individual privacy interests. The Court's decision is based on balancing competing considerations against the common law presumption of access, citing legal precedents like *United States v. Amodeo* and *Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*.
DOJ-OGR-00001922.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues for a client's release. The attorney cites a 2005 opinion by Judge Orenstein in *United States v. Turner* to support the argument that while victims have a right to be heard, this right does not constitute a veto over a defendant's release, especially when conditions can be set to ensure the defendant's appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001833.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the charges in the indictment and discussing the production of discovery materials. The government argues for the delayed disclosure of certain sensitive materials related to Epstein victims not testifying at trial to protect ongoing investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from April 24, 2020, discussing a motion by an individual named Thomas. The court denies Thomas's request for discovery related to his claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution, finding he has not met the high burden of proof required. The court dismisses Thomas's comparison to a 2005/2006 incident involving other officers, stating it is not relevant because Thomas is charged with making false statements, not with failing to conduct counts.
DOJ-OGR-00022079.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 24, 2020, is a discussion from the prosecution arguing against the defense strategy of a defendant named Thomas. The prosecution contends that Thomas's plan to argue for acquittal based on being overworked and understaffed at the MCC, with rampant falsification of records within the BOP, is not a valid legal defense. The document cites case law (United States v. Carr) to support the argument that such excuses do not negate the elements of the crime and that allowing this defense would encourage jury nullification.
DOJ-OGR-00022076.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that it has fulfilled its discovery obligations under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 16. The Government details the materials it has produced, including records surrounding Epstein's suicide and employee files for Noel and Thomas, and cites legal precedents from the Southern District of New York to support its position that the defendant's motion to compel further discovery should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00022067.jpg
This document is page 5 of a 34-page legal filing (Document 35 in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT), filed on April 24, 2020. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases cited within the main document, such as United States v. Payne and United States v. Pelullo. Each entry includes the full legal citation and the page number(s) where the case is referenced in the filing.
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-00022042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a broad interpretation of the prosecution's 'Brady obligations.' It asserts that the government must disclose not only admissible favorable evidence but any information that could lead to such evidence, resolving any doubts in favor of disclosure to the defense. The document cites several legal precedents, including Safavian and Paxson, to support the claim that the pretrial standard is simply whether evidence is favorable, not whether it would change the trial's outcome.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity