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-00021078.jpg
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
DOJ-OGR-00021060.jpg
This document is page xii of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court cases and federal statutes (U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code) that are cited as legal precedent or authority within the main document, along with the corresponding page numbers where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021025.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the death of potential witnesses. The prosecution contends that the defendant's assertions about what these witnesses (architects and a housekeeper) would have testified are speculative and unsubstantiated. It further argues that other witnesses, such as Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, were available and did testify about similar matters, like renovations at Epstein's residences, meaning the information was obtainable through other means.
DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.
DOJ-OGR-00021014.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the Defendant and the Court regarding how to respond to a deliberating jury's note. The Defendant's initial proposed responses were deemed erroneous, and she later conceded a point about a return flight's potential connection to illegal sexual activity. The document outlines the Defendant's attempts to influence the jury's understanding through specific instructions and supplemental proposals.
DOJ-OGR-00020999.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal, which was made at the close of the Government's case. The text outlines the legal standard for such a motion, citing numerous precedents that require the court to view evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00020998.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that analyzes whether two criminal counts (Count Three and Count Five) are multiplicitous, meaning they charge the same crime. The court concludes that because the Government presented the case as a single, broad conspiracy involving the Defendant and Epstein, the counts are indeed multiplicitous. To avoid double jeopardy, the court rules that it will only impose judgment on one of the counts (Count Three).
DOJ-OGR-00020995.jpg
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, discusses a 'pyramid scheme of abuse' involving a defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, spanning over a decade. It details how massage was used as a primary method to normalize contact, instigate sexual abuse, and lure young girls, with the defendant also providing cash. The text references trial testimony and legal precedents to argue the continuity and nature of the abuse scheme.
DOJ-OGR-00020992.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (likely an appeal brief) arguing that certain counts against the Defendant are 'multiplicitous' (charging the same offense multiple times). It cites legal precedents regarding conspiracy charges and argues that because the participants (specifically the Defendant and Epstein) and the objectives (acquiring underage girls for Epstein to abuse) overlapped substantially, the counts should be considered the same conspiracy. It explicitly describes the Defendant's role as procuring girls for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020989.jpg
This page from a legal document details the legal framework used by the Second Circuit to determine if multiple charges constitute a single conspiracy, which is relevant to double jeopardy claims. It lists the eight "Korfant factors" and explains the burden-shifting process where a defendant must first make a non-frivolous claim, after which the burden shifts to the government to prove the conspiracies are distinct. The text relies heavily on citations to previous court cases to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00020974.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) challenge to the impartiality of a juror, Juror 50. The court finds Juror 50's testimony credible and determines that his inadvertent nondisclosure about past sexual abuse does not constitute deliberate lying to be selected for the jury. The court rejects the defendant's argument that similarities between the juror's personal history and the case issues warrant a finding of implied bias, distinguishing this situation from other legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00020955.jpg
This legal document excerpt discusses the standards for setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial, particularly focusing on juror nondisclosure during voir dire examination. It cites several Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases, establishing that such motions are disfavored and require a high burden of proof, specifically demonstrating a juror's dishonest answer to a material question that would have led to a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00020917.jpg
This document is a schedule provided to prospective Juror ID 50 regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the timeline for jury selection (Nov 16-19, 2021) and the trial start date (Nov 29, 2021), clarifying that the jury will not be sequestered. It also emphasizes the civic duty of jury service, stating that only extraordinary hardship will be accepted as an excuse.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
DOJ-OGR-00020779.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in the case against Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The court addresses and rejects several of Maxwell's arguments that the indictment is impermissibly vague, specifically concerning the lack of precise dates for the alleged abuse, the inclusion of noncriminal conduct, and the omission of victims' names. The court cites legal precedents to affirm that the indictment is sufficient, particularly in cases involving the sexual abuse of children where victims may struggle to recall exact dates.
DOJ-OGR-00020776.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss an indictment based on pre-indictment delay. Maxwell argues the delay prejudiced her defense because potential witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and his mother, have died. The court rejects this argument, finding no evidence of improper government purpose for the delay and concluding that Maxwell's claims about what deceased witnesses might have testified are too speculative to meet the high standard required for dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00020771.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the § 3283 statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving child sex abuse and war frauds. It examines arguments made by 'Maxwell' and contrasts interpretations from Supreme Court cases like *Bridges v. United States* with those from the Second Circuit in *Weingarten* and the PROTECT Act. The document concludes that the legislative history and plain meaning of the statute support a broader application rather than a narrow one.
DOJ-OGR-00020769.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in a criminal case against an individual named Maxwell. The court analyzes and ultimately rejects Maxwell's argument that a 'categorical approach' should be used to interpret the statutes related to the charges. The court relies on precedent from the Second and Third Circuits, particularly the reasoning in *Weingarten v. United States*, to conclude that the categorical approach is not applicable in this context.
DOJ-OGR-00020763.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Annabi, the filing asserts that such agreements are limited to the district in which they are made unless they explicitly state a broader scope. The document refutes an opposing argument from an individual named Maxwell, stating the NPA lacks the necessary language to apply to other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00020747.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely an indictment, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines a conspiracy between Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, and others to entice individuals across state lines for illegal sexual activity. The document details specific overt acts, including Maxwell's participation in group sexual encounters with a minor victim in New York and Florida between 1994 and 1997, and the enticement of that same victim to travel for sexual abuse in 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00020582.jpg
This is a Motion Information Statement filed on July 15, 2022, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case USA v. Maxwell (Docket No. 22-1426). Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell, is formally requesting to be relieved from her duties as continued counsel for the appeal. The opposing party is the United States, represented by AUSAs from the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00020578.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet detailing the sentencing and subsequent appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell in late June and early July 2022. It records Judge Alison J. Nathan sentencing Maxwell to 240 months in prison, recommending placement at FCI Danbury, and imposing a $750,000 fine. The document also logs Maxwell's immediate filing of a Notice of Appeal following the judgment.
DOJ-OGR-00020485.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a criminal judgment against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Schedule of Payments' for criminal monetary penalties, ordering an immediate lump sum payment of $300.00. It also stipulates that further payments will commence 30 days after her release from imprisonment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity