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-00003101.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues against the severance of counts or defendants in a criminal case by citing numerous legal precedents. The text establishes that defendants have a 'heavy burden' to show 'substantial prejudice' to justify separate trials, and that courts generally favor joint trials for efficiency, leaving the decision to the district court's discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00003083.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal standard for materiality in a perjury case. It cites several precedents (Gaudin, Kross, Birrell, Chan Lo) to define what constitutes a material false statement, particularly in the context of a deposition. The document concludes by arguing that the defendant's deposition statements were knowingly false and that the determination of their truthfulness is a matter for the jury at trial, not for a pretrial dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00003082.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, discussing the legal standards for perjury. The author argues against dismissing a perjury count before trial based on 'fundamental ambiguity,' citing numerous court cases to establish that such challenges are typically evaluated after a trial. The text distinguishes between answers that are literally true but misleading (which may not be perjury) and answers that are outright false, regardless of responsiveness (which can be perjury).
DOJ-OGR-00003078.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, provides the factual background for a case, detailing how Virginia Roberts Giuffre joined a lawsuit concerning a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Giuffre alleged that the defendant was a "primary co-conspirator" who procured underage girls for Epstein and participated in sexual abuse. The document cites Giuffre's specific allegations that the defendant persuaded her to go to Epstein's mansion and was involved in a sexual encounter there.
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, discusses the legal standard for challenging an affidavit based on alleged omissions of fact. It cites numerous precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York, to argue that a motion to suppress evidence should be denied unless the omissions were intentional, deliberate, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The document emphasizes that this is a high standard to meet, as courts recognize that all affidavits will inevitably omit some facts that may seem significant in retrospect.
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
This legal document, page 140 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, outlines the legal standard for a defendant to obtain a "Franks hearing" to challenge the validity of an affidavit used for probable cause. It details the three-part test a defendant must meet, requiring a "substantial preliminary showing" of inaccuracies or omissions in the affidavit that were material and made with deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. The document explains that a court must then determine the materiality of these errors by revising the affidavit to see if it still supports a finding of probable cause.
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the standard for proving a Fifth Amendment due process violation is extremely high, requiring government conduct that is so egregious it "shocks the conscience." The text cites numerous legal precedents, including cases like Rochin, to illustrate that such violations typically involve severe invasions of individual rights and bodily integrity, and notes the defendant bears a "very heavy" burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically outlining the applicable law concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It defines and distinguishes between procedural and substantive due process by citing several court cases, including Martinez v. McAleenan and United States v. Salerno. The text highlights the two-step analysis for procedural due process and notes the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand the concept of substantive due process, as stated in Washington v. Glucksberg.
DOJ-OGR-00003062.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a government brief, arguing against a defendant's claim of Fifth Amendment privilege. It cites numerous court cases (such as Boyd, Fisher, and Bryson) to establish that the act of production privilege for private papers has been limited and that the Fifth Amendment does not protect an individual from prosecution for perjury, even if testimony was improperly compelled. The core argument is that a citizen cannot lie to the government with impunity.
DOJ-OGR-00003048.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, that discusses the application of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. It cites numerous federal court cases, including from the Supreme Court, to argue that suppressing evidence is a 'last resort' intended to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. The text emphasizes the 'good-faith' exception, particularly when law enforcement acts in reasonable reliance on a search warrant, suggesting that suppression is generally not warranted in such cases.
DOJ-OGR-00003043.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Fourth Amendment motion by an individual named Maxwell should be dismissed. The core argument is that Maxwell lacks legal standing to make the claim because she had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the files of a third-party law firm that represented her adversary in a separate civil litigation. The document cites numerous legal precedents to support the position that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted on behalf of others.
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument against a defendant's motion. The author contends that Section 3283, concerning sexual abuse offenses, should be interpreted broadly, citing precedents like 'Vickers' and 'Schneider'. The document argues that the defendant's reliance on the 'essential ingredients' test from 'Bridges v. United States' is misplaced because that case dealt with a different, more narrowly drafted statute (the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) and is therefore inapplicable.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002995.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and statutes of limitations. The author argues that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to retroactively extend a limitations period for prosecutions that are not yet time-barred, citing numerous legal precedents like Falter v. United States and Stogner v. California. The document concludes that applying Section 3283 retroactively in this case is lawful and dismisses the defendant's contrary assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). It cites a 2013 brief from the USAO-SDFL, an OPR Report, and Department of Justice guidelines to establish that the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to, and did not intend to, prevent Epstein's prosecution in any other federal district. The central theme is that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and did not provide nationwide immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00002968.jpg
This document is page 34 of a legal filing (Document 204) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. It discusses the legal interpretation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically rejecting the defendant's argument that the NPA binds the entire federal government rather than just the Southern District of Florida. The text quotes the specific NPA section granting immunity to potential co-conspirators, explicitly naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova.
DOJ-OGR-00002959.jpg
This document is page xxiv of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations with corresponding page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The majority of the cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and one corporation.
DOJ-OGR-00002958.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204) filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous legal cases, primarily with the United States as the plaintiff, along with their full legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited are from various federal courts and span several decades, serving as legal precedent for the arguments made in the filing.
DOJ-OGR-00002957.jpg
This document is page xxii of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases from 'United States v. Schafrick' to 'United States v. Swanson,' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the main document. The cases cited span from 1972 to 2015 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002956.jpg
This document is page xxi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal precedents in the format 'United States v. [Defendant]'. Each entry includes the case citation and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002955.jpg
This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.
DOJ-OGR-00002954.jpg
This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002949.jpg
This document is page 15 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing various United States court cases from 'Falso' to 'Gracesqui' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document.
DOJ-OGR-00002948.jpg
This document is page xiii from a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities from Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited within the larger document, providing the case name, legal citation, and the page numbers where each case is referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity