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-00001454.jpg
This legal document, page 14 of a court filing dated May 27, 2021, outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's detention order and for considering a defendant's temporary release. It cites U.S. statutes and several legal precedents, including United States v. Watkins and United States v. Scarborough, to establish that the court applies a 'deferential review' and that a defendant bears the burden of proving temporary release is necessary for their defense or for other compelling reasons.
DOJ-OGR-00001438.jpg
This legal letter, sent from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan, protests the detention conditions of her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, at the MDC. The letter argues that the 15-minute flashlight checks are disruptive and based on spurious justifications, such as 'enhanced security'. Sternheim refutes the government's claim that Maxwell possesses a contraband eye mask and provides evidence from an intake form showing Maxwell did not express safety concerns about being in the general population, contradicting the MDC's assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00001418.jpg
This legal document is an appeal to a court regarding the pretrial detention conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. The filing argues that her constitutional right to prepare for trial is being violated by conditions equivalent to solitary confinement, including sleep deprivation, intrusive searches, and poor sanitation. The document urges the court to intervene, suggesting her temporary release on bond as a remedy.
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
This legal filing argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell is weak because the anonymous accusers' stories are contradictory, uncorroborated, and fabricated for money and fame, only emerging after Epstein's death. The document also contends that the district judge erred by accepting the indictment as proof of a strong case and that the government's reliance on legal precedents is misplaced due to a lack of meaningful evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00001337.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision to deny temporary release to the defendant, Maxwell, was not a clear error or abuse of discretion. The document states that the judge thoroughly reviewed Maxwell's arguments, including comparisons to other cases, but found significant differences that justified continued detention. It also asserts that the judge has ensured Maxwell has adequate access to her counsel to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001333.jpg
This legal document, page 16 of a filing dated April 12, 2021, outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention. It specifies the factors a court must consider when the government seeks detention for flight risk, as laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The document also details the 'deferential review' standard for appealing a detention order and the conditions under which a judicial officer may permit temporary release of a detained individual.
DOJ-OGR-00001292.jpg
This legal document, a Memorandum Opinion and Order, outlines the background of a criminal case against Mr. Robertson. He is charged with multiple felonies, including obstruction of justice for allegedly shooting an informant, D.S., in September 2017. The document notes that Robertson has been in pretrial detention for over three years and that his trial, originally set for March 2020, was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and is now scheduled for April 5, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001290.jpg
This document is the cover page for Exhibit N, a "Memorandum Opinion and Order" (Doc. 306) from the legal case of United States v. Dashawn Robertson in the District of New Mexico (Case Number 17-cr-02949-MV1). The document was filed on April 1, 2021, as part of a separate case filing (Case 21-770, Document 20-3).
DOJ-OGR-00001276.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 22, 2021, discusses the legal standard for a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The central issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the motion while the defendant's separate bail appeal is pending, with the document citing case law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to outline the court's authority in such a situation.
DOJ-OGR-00001245.jpg
This legal document is a filing, likely by the government, arguing that the district court should deny the defendant's 'Third Bail Motion'. The primary argument is that the court lacks jurisdiction because the defendant has a simultaneous bail appeal pending in the Second Circuit. A secondary argument is that even if jurisdiction existed, the motion should be denied because the court has already twice found the defendant to be a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the legal standards for bail and detention, specifically addressing 'flight risk' and the burden of production. While the court acknowledges the defendant met a limited burden regarding family ties and finances, section B explicitly states that 'The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination,' implying a denial of the renewed motion for bail based on factors including the nature of the offense (involving a minor victim).
DOJ-OGR-00001214.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion arguing for a defendant's release on bail. The defendant proposes a new, comprehensive $28.5 million bail package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family. The proposed conditions also include home confinement with GPS monitoring, custody by a family member, and security services, all intended to mitigate the court's previous concerns about her being a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001179.jpg
This legal document, a letter dated December 15, 2020, from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, contains a statement from Annie Farmer opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. Farmer, a victim of Maxwell, details Maxwell's history of abuse, manipulative behavior, and flight risk, arguing that Maxwell is a psychopath who lacks remorse and would flee to avoid justice. The statement emphasizes the need for Maxwell to stand trial to ensure justice for her victims.
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and willingness to hide. The author dismisses proposed bail conditions like a $1 million bond from a security company and GPS monitoring as insufficient, citing several legal precedents (U.S. v. Banki, Zarger, and Benatar) where similar measures were deemed inadequate for high-risk defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001131.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text cites an expert, Mr. Julié, who argues that France would not protect Maxwell from extradition to the U.S. if she fled there, citing her U.S. citizenship, waiver of rights, and diplomatic interests. A footnote notes that French authorities have broadened their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein to include Maxwell, reducing her incentive to flee to France.
DOJ-OGR-00001128.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 14, 2020, argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk due to her extreme recognizability and the constant media scrutiny she faces. To further assure the Court of her intent to face charges, she offers to sign irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. The filing cites the 1999 case 'United States v. Cirillo' as a legal precedent for using such waivers as a condition for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
This legal document argues for the reconsideration of Ms. Maxwell's bail application. It cites several legal precedents that allow a court to reopen bail hearings based on new evidence or changed circumstances. The primary new evidence cited is the voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produced by the government after the initial hearing, which the defense claims raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001100.jpg
This document is a "Table of Authorities" from a legal filing, specifically page iii of a larger document. It lists thirteen federal court cases, providing their full citations, the dates of the decisions, and the page numbers within the filing where each case is referenced. All listed cases feature the United States as a party.
DOJ-OGR-00001086.jpg
This legal document excerpt analyzes the factors weighing in favor of Ms. Maxwell's detention, citing the serious nature of the crimes involving minor victims and the substantial sentences she faces if convicted, which could incentivize flight. It notes that the government's evidence, including detailed victim accounts and documentary evidence, appears strong at this early stage of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00001084.jpg
This legal document, dated April 1, 2021, is a transcript or filing that outlines the legal framework for a court to order a defendant's detention under U.S. Code Section 3142. It specifies that detention is ordered if no conditions can assure the defendant's appearance and community safety, detailing the standards of evidence for dangerousness and flight risk, and explaining the defendant's burden of production to rebut a presumption of detention as clarified by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00001007.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770. The judge begins by confirming that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has a working audio and video connection. The discussion then turns to a technical issue raised by Ms. Moe, who reports that the public call-in line is full, and the court expresses concern about an alternative listening arrangement involving a speakerphone.
DOJ-OGR-00001006.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, for a hearing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan. The transcript records the appearances of the legal counsel for both the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the U.S. government. The government's counsel also requests permission for staff from the U.S. Attorney's office to be dialed into the hearing due to technical issues with an overflow line from Connecticut.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity