Canada
LocationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
International relations |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
China
|
Geopolitical diplomatic |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Strategic ally |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
India
|
International cooperation |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Expected enactment of recreational cannabis law in Canada | Canada | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated enactment and implementation of Canada's recreational Cannabis Act | Canada | View |
| N/A | N/A | Expected legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada | Canada | View |
| N/A | N/A | India's development of a nuclear bomb | India | View |
| 1988-11-17 | N/A | Signing of Extradition Treaty between France and Canada. | Ottawa | View |
EFTA00003117.pdf
This document is a photograph of the specification label on the back of an HP Slimline Desktop PC (Model 260-a010). It displays the Serial Number CNV716004Y and Product Number V8P51AA#ABA. The image is marked with the evidence identifier EFTA00003117, suggesting it is a photo of computer hardware seized or processed as evidence in the investigation.
EFTA00000704.pdf
This document is a photograph of an interior hallway, likely within a property associated with the investigation. The image shows a sign labeled 'CELLAR' above a fire hose cabinet containing a hose marked 'MADE IN CANADA'. A fire extinguisher is mounted on a pipe to the left. The image bears the evidence identifier 'EFTA00000704' in the bottom right corner.
DOJ-OGR-00015250.tif
This document is a list of professional activities and speaking engagements from 1994 and 1995, likely from a CV. It details conferences, seminars, grand rounds, and workshops with their host organizations and locations across the US, Canada, Europe, and Asia. Key themes include psychology, law, trauma, memory, and sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00015217.tif
This document is a list of publications (books) authored or co-authored by E.F. Loftus and also details her past affiliations and consultancies with various government agencies, organizations, and legal bodies from 1976 to 2008. The publications listed span from 1973 to 1994, focusing primarily on memory, eyewitness testimony, and psychology, with several international editions and translations noted.
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition, likely in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The author argues that the defendant has not provided cases where such waivers are enforceable and cites several past court decisions (e.g., Epstein, Morrison, Stroh) where courts have deemed such waivers unenforceable, invalid until a formal request is made, or an 'empty gesture'. The document contrasts these with cases cited by the defense (e.g., Cirillo, Salvagno) where waivers were considered but were not the central factor in the court's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00019010.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely pilot David Rodgers). The testimony confirms flight log entries for March 5 and 6, 2001, showing that Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts flew together from Palm Beach, Florida to Stephenville, Canada, and then to Paris, France.
DOJ-OGR-00019004.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely pilot David Rodgers). The testimony details specific flight logs from May 1997, confirming a flight on May 5th from Geneva to Paris with only Jeffrey Epstein as a passenger, and a subsequent flight on May 6th from Paris to Stephenville, Canada, with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness also confirms that Epstein maintained an apartment in Paris at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00016084.jpg
This document is a FedEx Ground Reference Chart, page 21 of 21 of an invoice dated December 23, 2002. It provides a comprehensive list of service codes for FedEx Ground, FedEx International Ground, and FedEx Home Delivery, along with zone definitions for various US states, territories, and Canada, and a detailed breakdown of other charge code definitions for services and surcharges.
DOJ-OGR-00016063.jpg
This document is page 15 of 15 of a FedEx invoice dated December 16, 2002 (Invoice Number 4-495-33932). It is a reference chart defining various service codes for FedEx Ground and Home Delivery, as well as zone definitions and other charge codes (such as COD, Oversize, and Fuel Surcharge). The document bears the footer DOJ-OGR-00016063.
DOJ-OGR-00015442.jpg
This document is page 15 of a 15-page FedEx invoice (Account 1144-2081-6) dated December 16, 2002. It is a 'FedEx Ground Reference Chart' that lists codes and definitions for services, zones, and charges used in the invoice. The page bears the stamp 'CONFIDENTIAL' and Bates stamps 'SDNY_GM_00340794' (indicating the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) and 'DOJ-OGR-00015442'. No specific individuals or transaction amounts are listed on this reference page.
DOJ-OGR-00015422.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a FedEx invoice dated December 13, 2002 (Invoice Number 4-487-30791). It is a 'FedEx Ground Reference Chart' that provides definitions for service codes, zone locations (including Hawaii, Alaska, and Canada), and other charge codes (such as fuel surcharges and hazardous materials), rather than detailing specific transactions.
DOJ-OGR-00015407.jpg
This document is a FedEx Ground Reference Chart dated December 6, 2002, associated with invoice number 4-486-92384. It provides a detailed breakdown of service codes for FedEx Ground, FedEx International Ground, and FedEx Home Delivery, along with zone definitions and a list of other charge code definitions.
DOJ-OGR-00015392.jpg
This document is page 4 of 4 of a FedEx invoice dated November 29, 2002. It is a 'Reference Chart' listing various FedEx service codes, zone definitions, and charge codes. It contains no specific correspondence or transaction amounts but is marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' and bears Bates stamps (SDNY_GM_00340724 and DOJ-OGR-00015392), indicating it was produced as evidence in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial or related investigations.
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-00002244(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contrasts different legal precedents, citing cases where such waivers were considered unenforceable or an 'empty gesture' (e.g., United States v. Epstein) against others where they were conditions of release, though their enforceability was not explicitly determined. The document highlights the legal ambiguity surrounding whether a foreign country, like France, would honor such a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002143.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 97-22) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, authored by French attorney William Julié. It provides a legal analysis of the Extradition Treaty between France and the USA, arguing that unlike other treaties (such as the European Convention on Extradition), the US-France treaty does not explicitly prohibit the extradition of French nationals. It contrasts this with treaties France holds with countries like Morocco and China, and compares it favorably to the treaty with Canada.
DOJ-OGR-00022319.jpg
This document is a page (numbered 34) from a redacted address book or contact list containing names starting with 'J' and 'K'. It lists various individuals, including notable figures and couples, but all specific contact details (phone numbers, addresses) have been redacted with black blocks. The document bears a Department of Justice identifier (DOJ-OGR-00022319).
DOJ-OGR-00016681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Aznaran by Mr. Everdell. Aznaran explains that border crossing data, particularly from international flights, is collected when airlines submit passenger manifests to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then feeds into the TECS database. The witness also states that these records typically date back to the early or mid-1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00013420.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers (likely pilot David Rodgers). The testimony confirms flight details from May 1997, specifically a trip from Geneva to Paris on May 5th (Epstein only) and a trip from Paris to Stephenville, Canada on May 6th (Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness also confirms Epstein maintained an apartment in Paris, France.
DOJ-OGR-00004832.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated July 2, 2021, detailing the history of Bill Cosby's case. It reproduces a trial court's summary of testimony from a 2016 habeas corpus hearing, focusing on former District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr.'s 2005 decision-making process. The text recounts Castor's testimony about his investigation into Andrea Constand's allegations, including his rationale for assigning specific detectives and his assessment of the case's weaknesses, such as the delayed reporting and inconsistencies in statements.
DOJ-OGR-00004831.jpg
This document is a filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text specifically discusses the legal history of *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, detailing how a former District Attorney (Castor) issued a non-prosecution declaration to force Bill Cosby to testify in a civil suit without Fifth Amendment protection. It describes how subsequent District Attorneys (Ferman and Steele) reopened the case and charged Cosby, leading to a habeas corpus petition based on the alleged non-prosecution agreement—a legal precedent likely being cited by Maxwell's defense regarding her own non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004824.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), appearing to cite the precedent of the Bill Cosby case (Commonwealth v. Cosby). The text details former D.A. Bruce Castor's legal strategy to issue a non-prosecution statement for Bill Cosby specifically to prevent him from invoking the Fifth Amendment in a civil suit filed by Andrea Constand. It includes the text of a press release announcing the conclusion of the investigation into the January 2004 allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00004822.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically citing the Commonwealth v. Cosby case regarding District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute Bill Cosby. The text details Castor's reasoning, citing Andrea Constand's delay in reporting, inconsistencies in her statements, lack of forensic evidence found at the Cheltenham residence, and her continued contact with Cosby after the alleged assault. It notes that the pills provided by Cosby were confirmed to be Benadryl.
DOJ-OGR-00004817.jpg
This document is Page 5 of 80 from a court filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. However, the text itself is an excerpt from a legal opinion or summary of facts regarding the case of Commonwealth v. Cosby (referencing Bill Cosby and Andrea Constand). It details a January 2004 incident where Cosby allegedly drugged Constand with three blue pills and wine at his Cheltenham residence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity