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-00019358.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against Maxwell's complaint regarding the unsealing of civil case filings. The author contends that any resulting unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case is not a matter for immediate appeal, but rather an issue that can be reviewed and remedied after a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including Hitchcock, Mohawk Indus., United States v. Sabhnani, and United States v. Elfgeeh, to support the position that post-judgment appeals are the proper venue to address concerns of publicity-biased juries.
DOJ-OGR-00019357.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against an interlocutory appeal sought by a party named Maxwell. The author contends that Maxwell's reasons for appeal, related to pretrial discovery and the potential unsealing of documents, do not meet the high legal threshold for an appeal before a final judgment. The document cites several legal precedents, including cases like *United States v. Martoma* and *United States v. Guerrero*, to support its position that the issues are not significant enough to warrant immediate review.
DOJ-OGR-00019354.jpg
This legal document, page 12 of a filing from September 16, 2020, argues that protective orders regulating the use of documents in a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal. It cites numerous court precedents, including from the Supreme Court, to establish that such orders are not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine and do not constitute an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment. The document asserts that any challenge to a litigant's right to release documents can wait until a final judgment is rendered.
DOJ-OGR-00019353.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically Case 20-3061, dated September 16, 2020. It argues against the immediate appeal of a district court's pretrial decision, asserting that any potential harm to the defendant, Punn, can be adequately remedied through the standard appellate process after a final judgment. The text cites several legal precedents, including Mohawk Indus. and United States v. Hitchcock, to support the principle that post-conviction review is sufficient to protect a defendant's rights, even in cases involving purportedly ill-gotten evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019351.jpg
This page from a legal document discusses the principle of finality in criminal cases, which generally prohibits appeals until a final judgment is rendered. It outlines the narrow 'collateral order' exception that permits immediate appeals under specific, strict conditions. The text cites multiple Supreme Court cases to emphasize that this exception is rare and must be interpreted with the 'utmost strictness' to avoid the damaging effects of piecemeal litigation on the administration of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request to modify a protective order. The court notes that on July 30, 2020, it entered a protective order, which both the defendant and the government had agreed to, stipulating that discovery materials could only be used for the defense of the current criminal case. The defendant's subsequent request to use these materials for other purposes is denied, with the court referencing the prior agreement and legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00019300.jpg
This document is the conclusion page of a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, from the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. On behalf of their client, Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, the attorneys request that the court consolidate two separate cases: United States v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-3061) and Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 20-2413).
DOJ-OGR-00019289.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell on September 10, 2020, requesting the consolidation of two appeals. The first is from her criminal case (United States v. Maxwell) and the second is from a civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell). Maxwell argues the cases are intertwined because new information from the criminal case is relevant to the court's decision to unseal deposition material in the civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00019270.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing proceedings and filings between July 7 and July 9, 2020. Key entries include notices of attorney appearances for the defense, a motion for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to appear pro hac vice, the filing of a superseding indictment, and a court order scheduling a remote arraignment and bail hearing for July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019226.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, presents an argument for the partial closure of court proceedings due to the public health risks of COVID-19. It cites statistics on the virus's spread in New Hampshire and nationally to emphasize the danger to all participants. The document references the case 'United States v. Smith' as a legal precedent for policies that constitute a partial closure of a courtroom for security or safety reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00019224.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, is a court order concerning the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The court details its decision to hold the hearing via video, justifying it as a partial, rather than total, closure of proceedings. It references its own Standing Orders related to the COVID-19 outbreak and cites legal precedents to affirm that it has considered the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and the public's First Amendment rights to access.
DOJ-OGR-00019214.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ) dated July 2, 2020, detailing statutory allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell. It alleges that between 1994 and 1997, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein conspired to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422, by enticing and coercing individuals to travel in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00019200.jpg
This document is a 'Commitment to Another District' filed on July 2, 2020, by the United States District Court, District of New Hampshire, concerning defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. It details charges including conspiracy to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts and perjury, alleged to have been committed in the Southern District of New York. The document also notes her bond status and legal representation by Lawrence Vogelman.
DOJ-OGR-00019194.jpg
This document is a court order from July 2, 2020, concerning the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The court justifies its decision to hold the hearing via video, considering the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and the public's First Amendment rights to access. It concludes that a video hearing constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of proceedings, ensuring public access is maintained.
DOJ-OGR-00019186.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal indictment filed on July 2, 2020, against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines charges alleging that between 1994 and 1997, Maxwell transported a minor, identified as Minor Victim-1, from Florida to New York for sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein. It also details COUNT THREE, a conspiracy charge, alleging Maxwell, Epstein, and others conspired to commit these acts.
DOJ-OGR-00019184.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, outlines statutory allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell. It accuses her, Jeffrey Epstein, and other unnamed individuals of engaging in a conspiracy from approximately 1994 to 1997 in the Southern District of New York and other locations. The object of the conspiracy was to entice and coerce individuals to travel for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity, in violation of federal law.
DOJ-OGR-00017000.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, proposes an instruction regarding the credibility of a witness with a prior felony conviction, citing the case 'United States v. Berry' as a model. The opposing counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, requests time to review this new proposal, which the Court grants, suggesting the instruction be added as a standalone item.
DOJ-OGR-00016752.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in which a judge is making rulings on the admissibility of a witness's prior statements. The judge explains the legal basis for their decisions, citing case law, and then rules on specific objections related to the testimony of a witness named Jane. The judge overrules some objections and sustains others based on whether Jane denied or admitted to the statements in question.
DOJ-OGR-00016590.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus, who is discussing their professional credentials. Loftus notes their CV is 47 pages long and highlights their election to the National Academy of Sciences in 2004 as a significant honor.
DOJ-OGR-00010561.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in which the Government argues for a sentencing enhancement for a defendant. The Government contends that the defendant's criminal activity was "otherwise extensive" under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), citing Second Circuit case law to counter the defense's argument that the enhancement requires supervision of a knowing participant.
DOJ-OGR-00010555.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 22, 2022, is a portion of a court filing arguing that the judge (the Court), not the jury, is responsible for determining which version of the Sentencing Guidelines to apply in a case. The filing cites legal precedent from the Second Circuit and the text of the Guidelines themselves to refute the defendant's claim that this factual determination must be made by a jury, particularly regarding the date of an offense for ex post facto considerations.
DOJ-OGR-00010554.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2004 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual should be applied to the defendant's case. It refutes the defendant's objections, which are based on the Ex Post Facto Clause, by establishing that the criminal conduct continued until December 31, 2004, after the 2004 Manual became effective. The argument is supported by citations to the Guidelines and Second Circuit case law.
DOJ-OGR-00009236.jpg
This document is page 'xii' of a legal index or table of contents, filed on February 24, 2022. It lists documents ranging from 2012 to 2013 concerning the case of United States v. David Parse, specifically referencing sentencing memoranda, restitution calculations regarding 'Jenkens and Gilchrist Clients,' and correspondence between attorney Paul Shechtman and Judge Pauley. The document outlines the procedural history of Parse's sentencing, appeal, and judgment.
DOJ-OGR-00009235.jpg
This document is a table of contents (page xi) from a court filing dated February 24, 2022, listing exhibits and transcripts related to a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It indexes materials from 2011 and 2012, including emails between various individuals (Viviann Stapp, Randy Kim, Suann Ingle, Kendra Melrose), jury selection materials, internal emails from 'Brune & Richard,' and transcripts of telephone conferences and new trial hearings. The document also references a supplemental memorandum of law filed by the United States opposing a motion for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009213.jpg
This legal document discusses the government's arguments in a case, referencing previous cases like United States v. Torres and United States v. Daugerdas. It focuses on whether a new trial is warranted based on juror bias and concealed personal background information, arguing that the current case is stronger than in Torres.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity