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-00005740.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 seven U.S. court cases, dating from 1967 to 2012, which are cited as legal precedent in the associated legal brief. The cases are from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00005728.jpg
This document is a 'Tables of Authorities' from a legal filing, Document 391 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal cases and federal rules of evidence cited as precedent and authority within the associated legal brief or motion. The citations indicate the legal framework and arguments being relied upon by the filing party.
DOJ-OGR-00005721.jpg
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, asserting that a specific document should be inadmissible as evidence. The core argument is that the document is not a reliable business record because it was created specifically in anticipation of litigation against Mr. Epstein, not in the ordinary course of business. The text cites several legal precedents to support this position and outlines the stringent requirements for a document to qualify under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
DOJ-OGR-00005719.jpg
This legal document argues that certain proffered documents cannot be authenticated as required by Federal Rules of Evidence. The filing suggests the documents, which surfaced in 2009, were likely manipulated or manufactured by Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee of Mr. Epstein, in an attempt to secure a $50,000 payment. The document asserts there is no evidence linking the creation or maintenance of these documents to Ms. Maxwell or any other credible source.
DOJ-OGR-00002896.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 5, 2021, analyzes Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) concerning ex parte applications for pretrial subpoenas. It contrasts the majority view, which generally disfavors such applications unless for trial use, with specific court precedents that permit them to protect sensitive information like trial strategy. The text cites several cases, including Weisman, Fox, and Reyes, to illustrate the legal arguments and differing practices among court districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002854.jpg
This page from a legal filing outlines conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein involving the enticement of minors for sexual activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. It specifically details 'Overt Acts' committed between 1994 and 1997 involving a 'Minor Victim-1' in New York and Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00005290.jpg
This document is page 14 (marked -13- internally) of a Juror Questionnaire filed on October 22, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains screening questions regarding the potential jurors' past experiences with grand jury investigations, being a victim of a crime, or having legal disputes with government agencies like the FBI or NYPD. The document features strikethroughs indicating a renumbering of the questions (e.g., changing question 23 to 24).
DOJ-OGR-00005198.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Service from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, signed by David A Diew on August 4, 2021, and filed on October 12, 2021. The certificate states that the United States was not served separately with a document because they are registered as electronic filers and would receive it via the electronic system.
DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 12, 2021. The author argues against a prior legal ruling, the 'Schneider decision,' by citing several court cases to support a 'categorical reading' of statutes concerning sexual abuse. The text contends that opposing arguments misapply legal definitions from statutes like §3509 and §3283, particularly in non-Chapter 109A offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 12, 2021, that critiques a court's decision in a case referred to as "Schneider." The author argues that the Schneider court misinterpreted statute §3283 by failing to examine its legislative history, unlike the approaches in the cited cases of "Dodge" and "Bridges." The document contends that the Schneider court's failure led it to avoid creating a necessary "common" definition of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00005190.jpg
This handwritten legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, analyzes the legislative history and judicial interpretation of U.S. federal sexual abuse laws. It discusses the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act (SAA), its relationship with the Victim of Child Abuse Act and specific statutes like §3283, and cites court cases such as U.S. v. Shaw (2017) and U.S. v. Haynsworth (1997) to illustrate how courts have defined terms and applied the law. The note also references legislative proposals from 1984 and 1990 concerning statutes of limitations and legal definitions.
DOJ-OGR-00005183.jpg
This document is a handwritten legal motion filed on October 12, 2021, by federal inmate David A. Diehl (Reg. No. 53214018) from USP Coleman II. Diehl argues legal points regarding statutes of limitations, citing 'Stogner v. California' and 18 USC § 3299, to request 'intervenor status' in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document serves as a cover letter for an enclosed brief he wishes to file in her case.
DOJ-OGR-00005181.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, is part of a case against a defendant named Maxwell. The author argues that the United States government is misapplying the statute of limitations (18 USC § 3283) in Maxwell's case, drawing a parallel to a previous case, United States v. Diehl. The document notes that Diehl has since filed a 'fraud on the court' motion against the government for similar alleged misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00005158.jpg
This document is a blank 'Proof of Service' form (AO 89B) from a criminal case (20CR330), filed on September 7, 2021. It is used by a process server to attest to the delivery of a subpoena, or to explain why service could not be completed, and to declare any associated fees. The form is currently unfilled.
DOJ-OGR-00005116.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically an excerpt from a subpoena form (AO 89B) filed in a criminal case. It outlines sections of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, detailing the legal requirements for producing documents, serving subpoenas, the geographic scope of service, and the consequences of non-compliance, such as being held in contempt of court. The rules also provide protections for victims when their personal information is sought.
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.
DOJ-OGR-00008822.jpg
This is a legal letter dated January 19, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter serves to inform the court that Maxwell's counsel has filed a Motion for a New Trial and requests that all materials concerning Juror No. 50 be kept under seal until the court rules on the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00008747.jpg
This document is a jury instruction (Instruction No. 31) from a federal court case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 19, 2021. It explains the legal definition of conspiracy as it pertains to charges against Ms. Maxwell in Counts One, Three, and Five of an indictment, referencing Title 18, Section 371 of the United States Code. The instruction clarifies that a conspiracy is a separate crime from the underlying offense and can be found even if the object of the conspiracy was never committed.
DOJ-OGR-00008732.jpg
This document is a jury instruction from a federal criminal case, filed on December 19, 2021. It outlines the relevant statute for Count Four, defining the federal crime of knowingly transporting an individual under 17 across state lines with the intent to engage in illegal sexual activity, as specified in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a).
DOJ-OGR-00011665.jpg
This is a Notice of Filing of Official Transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 20-cr-330) in the Southern District of New York. The document notifies parties that a transcript for a conference held on November 23, 2021, has been filed by court reporter 'speer'. It outlines the standard legal procedures and deadlines for requesting redactions of personal identifiers before the transcript becomes publicly available.
DOJ-OGR-00011566.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial ruling dated July 22, 2022, concerning a sentencing guideline calculation. The judge finds that two individuals, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. The judge overrules a prior decision by the Probation department to exclude them from the calculation and, citing Second Circuit precedent, decides to consider them as additional victims for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00011564.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on July 22, 2022. A judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act case is not impermissible 'double counting'. The judge explains that the enhancement addresses a different type of harm than the base offense level and cites precedent from 'United States v. Watkins' and 'United States v. Kohlmeier' to support the ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00011556.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding concerning the sentencing of a defendant named Guerrero for a sex-trafficking conspiracy. The judge is determining whether the 2003 or the harsher 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, which hinges on whether the crime continued after November 1, 2004. This determination relies heavily on the testimony of a victim named Carolyn, whom the judge and jury found to be a credible witness.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity