Davis
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Herbie Hancock
|
Professional mentorship |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Author
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OMB
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Alan Turing
|
Academic historical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Julia Robinson
|
Academic successor |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Investigative interest |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Legal representation of Angela Davis | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | Issuance of a report by 'Davis' that is critical of 'Leon' and the board, related to Caesars. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Martin Davis coined the term 'The Halting Problem'. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial of Angela Davis | America | View |
| 2019-07-31 | N/A | Multiple inmates moved to Special Housing Unit (SHU). | Special Housing Unit (SHU) | View |
| 2019-07-31 | N/A | Inmate Davis caught with cellphone. Inserted cellphone into anus cavity upon cell door unlocking. | MCC New York | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of *United States v. Davis*, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2327 (2019) is cited for the principle tha... | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Court decision | Citation to United States v. Davis, which involved a statute defining a 'crime of violence' using... | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of U.S. v. Davis was decided, interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). | United States | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Davis, which stated that a statutory phrase should have a fixed mean... | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Legal decision | The case of United States v. Davis was decided (based on 139 S.Ct. 2319). | N/A | View |
| 2016-11-17 | N/A | Bank of America Merrill Lynch's '2016 Future of Financials Conference', where this presentation s... | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | N/A | Nicholas Ribis predicts that 'Davis' would issue a report critical of 'Leon' and a board, referen... | N/A | View |
| 2012-01-12 | Legal case | Legal case cited: Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 11... | S.D. Miss. | View |
| 1978-01-01 | N/A | Bakke decision | US Supreme Court | View |
| 1970-01-01 | N/A | Yuri Matiyasevich completes the mathematical proof, leading to the Robinson Davis Matiyasevich th... | Unknown | View |
| 1963-01-01 | N/A | Joined Miles Davis Quintet | Unknown | View |
| 1948-01-01 | N/A | Martin Davis proved that word substitution puzzles are a class of non-computable problem. | Unknown | View |
| 0017-01-01 | N/A | The '2016 Future of Financials Conference' was held, where management from USB provided updates o... | Unknown | View |
EFTA00034979.pdf
This document is a Daily Lieutenant's Log from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York for July 31, 2019. It details operational events across three shifts (Morning, Day, Evening), including inmate counts, movements to hospitals and SHU, and facility issues. Notably, the log reports that the fire alarm, pump system, and public address system were inoperable or malfunctioning, requiring a 'Fire Watch' protocol.
EFTA00033707.pdf
Bureau of Prisons Daily Lieutenant's Log for MCC New York dated August 5, 2019. The log notes critical infrastructure failures including an inoperable fire alarm/pump system and a malfunctioning public address system just days before Jeffrey Epstein's death. It lists inmate movements, counts, and notes that an inmate named Benjamin (not Epstein's ID) was on suicide watch with an inmate companion.
EFTA00033653.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report from MCC New York dated August 1, 2019, covering activities from July 31, 2019. It details a significant security breach where inmate Davis was caught with a cellphone and hid it in his body cavity, resulting in his transfer to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) pending FBI referral. The report also highlights significant staffing shortages, noting 9 staff members as AWOL and specific posts on 10-South and 11-South left unassigned due to these shortages.
DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg
This legal document is page 2 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 3, 2021. The author argues that the government cannot use attorney-client privilege to prevent Ms. Maxwell's team from cross-examining a witness named Jane about a statement her attorney, Mr. Glassman, made to her. The filing contends the privilege does not apply because the communication was not intended to be confidential and, in any case, was waived when it was relayed to the government.
DOJ-OGR-00021107.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, arguing for a 'categorical approach' to interpreting statutes of limitation, specifically §3283. It cites several Supreme Court precedents, most notably U.S. v. Noveck (1926), to support the argument that an extended statute of limitations for fraud-related offenses only applies when fraud is an essential element of the crime itself, not when it is merely alleged as 'mere surplusage' in an indictment for a different crime like perjury or tax evasion.
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-00021707.jpg
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
DOJ-OGR-00021655.jpg
This document is page vii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal cases with the United States as the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation (including the court and year), and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00009005.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, ranging from 1933 to 2022. Notably, it cites 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019), a case directly involving the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00010353.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The court analyzes and rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that Juror 50 was biased due to dishonest answers on a jury questionnaire. The court distinguishes this case from precedents involving deliberate deception, crediting Juror 50's explanation that his nondisclosure was an 'inadvertent mistake' resulting from personal distractions and 'skimming' the form.
DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal document filed on March 11, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It lists numerous legal cases, with decision dates ranging from 1933 to 2022, which are cited as legal precedent in the main filing. Each entry includes the case name, citation, and the page number(s) where it is referenced in the document.
DOJ-OGR-00009282.jpg
This document is a page from an alphabetical index of a court transcript for the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It lists keywords from 'counsels' to 'deliberating' along with the corresponding page and line numbers where they appear in the full transcript. The document was prepared by Southern District Reporters and is part of a larger legal file, as indicated by the case and document numbers at the top.
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) claims. The Government refutes the defendant's assertion that she was protected by a civil protective order when giving deposition testimony, citing case law (e.g., Andover Data Servs., Davis) to establish that such orders do not provide the same protections as the Fifth Amendment. The document also dismisses the defendant's claim that the Government's conduct violated her due process rights as "meritless."
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
This document is a legal filing, likely from the Government, arguing against a motion by a defendant named Maxwell to suppress evidence. The Government contends that Maxwell has no legal basis for suppression under the 'Martindell' precedent and that the court should decline to review a prior, coequal judge's (Chief Judge McMahon) decision to modify a protective order. The filing cites several Second Circuit cases to support its position that suppression is not the proper remedy and that pre-existing documents are not covered by the protective order's presumptions.
DOJ-OGR-00003039.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated April 16, 2021, discussing legal precedents concerning the modification of protective orders in the face of a grand jury subpoena. It cites several Second Circuit cases, including Martindell and Davis, to argue that a grand jury's broad investigative powers often outweigh a party's reliance on a protective order, particularly for pre-existing documents. The text emphasizes that the need for a grand jury to gather evidence in a criminal investigation is a powerful reason to permit modification of such orders.
DOJ-OGR-00002948.jpg
This document is page xiii from a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities from Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited within the larger document, providing the case name, legal citation, and the page numbers where each case is referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00002667.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 4, 2021, which argues for a specific interpretation of the statutory phrase "offense involving." It cites several court precedents, including cases like Kawashima v. Holder and United States v. Morgan, to support the position that this phrase requires looking at the essential elements of the crime itself, not merely the surrounding circumstances. The D.C. Circuit's analysis of a venue statute is used as a key example to illustrate that for an offense to 'involve' an activity like interstate transportation, that activity must be a formal element of the offense.
DOJ-OGR-00005219.jpg
This page from a legal document argues for the necessity of individual, sequestered voir dire conducted by legal counsel, in addition to the Court. It contends that this method is more effective at uncovering potential juror bias, especially in cases with significant pretrial publicity, by fostering a more conversational and less intimidating environment that encourages honesty. The text cites legal precedent and academic research to support the claim that attorney-led questioning yields better results for seating a fair and impartial jury.
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-00005182.jpg
This document is a handwritten legal argument filed in court on October 12, 2021, challenging a court's interpretation of statute §3283. The author argues that the statute's legislative history, originating from the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act, demonstrates its narrow purpose is for sexual assault and related offenses, not a broader application. The argument cites several legal cases (Davis, Pledges, Bridges) to contend that the court's findings are 'patently wrong'.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017541.jpg
This document is a detailed biographical profile of jazz musician Herbie Hancock, likely used as an exhibit in a House Oversight investigation (indicated by the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017541'). It chronicles his career from a child prodigy in Chicago to a multi-Grammy winning artist and UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, detailing his collaborations with Miles Davis, Joni Mitchell, and many others. The document does not contain direct references to Jeffrey Epstein, financial transactions, or flight logs, but serves as a background document within a larger investigative collection.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017417.jpg
This document appears to be a page (330) from a draft manuscript, likely by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012. The text recounts a grim experience playing basketball on death row and discusses the political shift in human rights discourse during the 1970s, criticizing 'hard left' figures like Noam Chomsky and former clients Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman for their stance on socialist regimes and Israel.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017294.jpg
This document appears to be a page (207) from a larger manuscript or book draft (indicated by the word count 'WC: 191694'). The text discusses political dissidents and the American judicial system, arguing that while high-profile figures like Angela Davis can receive fair trials due to media attention, many obscure defendants do not receive equal treatment. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015948.jpg
This document is page 258 of a book or article titled 'Are the Androids Dreaming Yet?' stamped with a House Oversight Committee identifier. The text discusses mathematical theory regarding computability, specifically referencing Emil Post, Alan Turing, and the 'Post Word Problem' in relation to music analysis. While the document is part of a House Oversight production (likely related to the Epstein investigation given his ties to the scientific community), the text itself is purely academic and contains no direct information regarding Epstein's criminal activities or financial transactions.
USB Innovation and Growth
Davis commented on the importance of funding innovation for long-term benefits and expressed optimism about the P2P initiative with Zelle.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity