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-00020477.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet (Page 91 of 91) covering the final judgment and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell in June and July 2022. It details her sentence of 240 months (20 years) imprisonment, a $750,000 fine, and the dismissal of specific counts, as well as her subsequent filing of a Notice of Appeal. The document also includes administrative orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the docketing of previous correspondence and expert witness opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00020392.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 22-1426, detailing the initial proceedings against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in late June and early July 2020. It lists the attorneys for the prosecution (USA), including Alison Gainfort Moe and Maurene Ryan Comey, and key events such as the unsealing of the indictment, Maxwell's arrest in New Hampshire, the assignment of Judge Alison J. Nathan, and a request to schedule her initial appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a statement about when Mr. Epstein abandoned a property is not a settled fact. She contends that defense witnesses could have testified that Epstein lived on East 71st Street prior to 1996, contradicting the idea he abandoned it then, and references a prior opinion by Judge Chin to support her argument that the facts are disputable. The transcript ends with the presiding judge asking to see the document under discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00015162.jpg
This document, a legal filing, discusses the strict legal standard for unsealing grand jury testimony, emphasizing that it should only be done in rare, 'exceptional circumstances' to preserve the integrity of grand jury secrecy. It argues against the Government's motion to unseal summary-witness testimony, contending that such an action would undermine the foundations of secrecy and that the redundancy of the testimony with evidence from Maxwell's trial does not justify its release.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00002367.jpg
This page from a court filing argues that the court has the inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained through government misrepresentation. It cites multiple legal precedents to support the claim that sanctions can be applied even if the misconduct occurred in a different venue, provided it is related to the current case.
DOJ-OGR-00002367(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the court has the inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained through the government's misrepresentation. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that this power is not limited to misconduct within the immediate courtroom but can extend to related actions in other proceedings. The core argument is that the government's deception was essential to obtaining the factual basis for certain counts, and therefore, the resulting evidence should be suppressed.
DOJ-OGR-00002366.jpg
This legal document argues that the government violated due process by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose information, which likely impacted a Protective Order. It cites several legal precedents to assert that prosecutors have a duty to seek justice, are presumed to have knowledge of their office's investigations, and must ensure the truthfulness of representations made to a federal judge. The document concludes that the Assistant U.S. Attorney failed in this fundamental duty.
DOJ-OGR-00002339.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 1, 2021, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues against the Metropolitan Detention Center's (MDC) objection to allowing Maxwell laptop access on weekends and holidays to review millions of pages of discovery documents. The letter asserts that the MDC's proposed alternative, a prison computer, is inadequate for the task and that the MDC has failed to provide a valid security or staffing reason for restricting laptop access, thereby impeding Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002329(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, presents an analysis by a 'Mr. Martin' concerning the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors. The analysis compares the demographic composition of the 'White Plains qualified wheel' (juror pool) to the eligible juror populations of the Manhattan Division and the entire Southern District of New York, finding significant disparities. This argument is being made in the context of a case involving 'Epstein's New York residence,' which is located in the Manhattan Division.
DOJ-OGR-00002328.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text argues that the jury selection process in White Plains systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic individuals, thereby violating Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section. The argument relies on the three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Duren v. Missouri to demonstrate a prima facie violation.
DOJ-OGR-00002327.jpg
This legal document is an argument on behalf of defendant Ms. Maxwell, challenging the composition of the grand jury that indicted her. It cites an analysis by jury expert Jeffrey Martin from a similar case, United States v. Balde, which found significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic persons in the White Plains jury wheel. The argument posits that since Ms. Maxwell's grand jury was drawn from the same system, her Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community was violated.
DOJ-OGR-00002327(1).jpg
This legal document argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. It cites a parallel case, U.S. v. Balde, and an expert analysis by Jeffrey Martin, which found significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals in the White Plains jury wheel. Because Ms. Maxwell's grand jury was drawn from the same pool, the document contends this analysis applies to her case as well.
DOJ-OGR-00002317(1).jpg
This legal document, dated January 25, 2021, is a memorandum filed in support of a motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures in the case against Ms. Maxwell. It argues that the indictment lacks specificity regarding alleged 'grooming' acts, violating her constitutional rights, and requests either the dismissal of certain counts or that the government provide more detailed information for her defense. The document is signed by several attorneys representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00002315.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, argues that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell lacks sufficient specificity regarding the alleged crimes and the identities of accusers/victims. It contends that the open-ended time periods and vague descriptions of 'minor girls' or 'victims' in the indictment make it impossible for Ms. Maxwell to prepare an adequate defense or apply the statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents to support the argument for greater specificity in criminal charges.
DOJ-OGR-00002315(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing that the indictment against Ms. Maxwell is insufficient for her to prepare a defense. The filing claims the indictment uses vague, open-ended time periods for the alleged crimes (e.g., 'from at least in or about 1994') and fails to specifically identify the accusers, referring to them with general terms like 'minor girls' and 'victims'. This vagueness, the document argues, makes it impossible to apply the statute of limitations or know who the government considers a victim.
DOJ-OGR-00002313.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Document 124) in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists four legal cases and one federal rule of criminal procedure as legal precedent for arguments made within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1962 to 2019 and involve various individuals in legal proceedings against the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002303(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is a motion from Ms. Maxwell requesting the Court to dismiss Count One or Count Three of her Superseding Indictment. She argues that these counts are multiplicitous, charging the same offense twice, and thus violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The document cites legal precedents to define multiplicity and explain its dangers.
DOJ-OGR-00002302.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Document 122, filed 01/25/21, Page 3 of 9). It lists various legal cases, statutes, other authorities, rules, and constitutional provisions, along with page numbers where they are cited within the main document. The document primarily serves as a reference list for legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00002302(1).jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as an index, listing the legal precedents—including court cases, federal statutes, state law, and constitutional provisions—that are cited in the associated legal brief. The authorities listed are used to support the arguments made in the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002285(1).jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on January 25, 2021, addresses the perjury counts (Five and Six) against Ms. Maxwell. It alleges she testified falsely in two separate civil depositions on April 22, 2016, and July 22, 2016. The document then lays out the applicable law regarding the joinder of offenses under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, citing case law to explain the balance between trial efficiency and potential prejudice to the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal arguments concerning the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites various legal precedents, noting that while some defendants have offered such waivers, courts have often not ruled on their enforceability or have deemed them unenforceable, as in the Epstein case where it was called an "empty gesture." The document highlights the significant legal uncertainty surrounding whether a foreign country would enforce such a waiver, making it a contentious point in the defendant's case against extradition to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, analyzes a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden of producing evidence (regarding financial conditions and family ties) to counter the presumption of being a flight risk. However, citing legal precedents like United States v. Mercedes and Martir, the court asserts that this presumption does not disappear and must still be weighed, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination regarding release conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00002240(1).jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a court filing dated December 30, 2020, analyzes the legal standards for a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden to provide evidence against the presumption of being a flight risk, citing her financial conditions and family ties. However, citing precedents like *United States v. Mercedes* and *Martir*, the court maintains that the presumption of flight does not disappear and must still be given weight, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity