SEC
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
Administrative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Frank Gaffney Jr.
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
MIA
|
Records request |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Street.com
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
TheStreet.Com
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Edward Snowden
|
Intelligence asset handler implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC)
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jamil Nazarali
|
Employee |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
CME
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIA
|
Investigator information provider |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIA
|
Investigative transactional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Drysdale Government Securities
|
Corporate structure |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
U.S. forces
|
Advisory training |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bill Siegel
|
Employment contributor |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Inter agency coordination |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Deceptive association |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Professional interagency |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Christopher Dilorio
|
Adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Chris Dilorio
|
Adversarial |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
CMS
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
VeriSign, Inc.
|
Consultant assistance provider |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Inter agency cooperation |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Party to agreement |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | SEC Investigation (implied) | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | SEC decision not to bring charges regarding the resignation/incident. | USA | View |
| N/A | N/A | Smuggling of 3,000 tons of construction materials per day | Egypt-Gaza border tunnels | View |
| N/A | N/A | Release of House Internal Security Committee blacklist | Washington D.C. / National | View |
| N/A | N/A | SEC Complaint Filing | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein's designation as a sex offender | New York | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Target date for NTP (National Transformation Program) objectives. | Saudi Arabia | View |
| 2018-09-01 | N/A | SEC lawsuit against Elon Musk regarding 'funding secured' tweet. | US | View |
| 2018-01-03 | Legal case | The case of SEC v. Blaszczak, No. 17-CV-3919 (AJN), 2018 WL 301091, was decided, granting a motio... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | N/A | SEC charges against Phillip Frost for pump-and-dump schemes (referenced in email). | N/A | View |
| 2017-01-01 | N/A | SEC dropped probe into Apollo month after firm aided Kushner company (referenced in email). | N/A | View |
| 2016-01-01 | N/A | Electricity prices increased by weighted average of close to 20%. | Saudi Arabia | View |
| 2016-01-01 | N/A | Federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case. | Manhattan | View |
| 2016-01-01 | Legal decision | Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue the case against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine M... | Manhattan | View |
| 2014-06-11 | N/A | Harold Simmons Foundation files with SEC to sell 2.5 million shares. | N/A | View |
| 2011-06-22 | N/A | SEC adopted final rules implementing new exemptions from the registration requirements of the Inv... | United States | View |
| 2010-06-15 | Legal ruling | A ruling was issued in the case SEC v. Boock in the Southern District of New York. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2009-02-01 | N/A | Internal investigation into Snowden's suspicious computer activities. | Washington | View |
| 2008-07-01 | N/A | E*TRADE reached a $1 million settlement with the SEC regarding CIP failures. | USA | View |
| 2008-03-05 | N/A | Request initiated for certified corporate records from Delaware. | Miami / Dover, DE | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case citation for SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001). | N/A | View |
| 2001-01-01 | Legal case | SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir.2001) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1998-02-24 | N/A | Michael Milken consented to entry of final judgment in SEC v. Michael R. Milken et al. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 1991-03-11 | N/A | SEC instituted proceeding barring Milken from association with brokers/dealers. | N/A | View |
| 1990-04-24 | N/A | Milken consented to judgment concurrently with plea agreement covering criminal violations. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
020.pdf
Transcript of the initial appearance and arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019, in the Southern District of New York. The government argues for pretrial detention, citing extreme flight risk due to wealth/private jets and danger to the community based on evidence found in his home (photos of minors) and potential witness tampering. The defense pleads not guilty, argues the conduct is 'ancient' (2002-2005), and claims a 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement covers the conduct; a full detention hearing is scheduled for July 11.
026-02.pdf
This document is Exhibit 2 in Case 1:23-cv-03903-JSR, filed on July 6, 2023. It contains the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of JPMorgan Chase & Co., dated April 3, 2006, and signed by Corporate Secretary Anthony J. Horan. The document outlines the corporation's name (originally Chemical New York Corporation), purposes, powers, authorized capital stock (9.2 billion shares), and governance provisions regarding directors and stockholders.
017-11.pdf
This Omnibus Order from the U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida), dated April 1, 2010, denies two motions filed by Jeffrey Epstein for reconsideration of previous orders. The court upholds previous rulings compelling Epstein to produce specific discovery materials, including his passport and tax returns (W-2s and 1099s for 2003-2008), rejecting his Fifth Amendment arguments under the 'foregone conclusion' doctrine and 'required records' exception. The order grants Epstein a ten-day window to file a formal appeal.
017-02.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 6, 2009, opposing a Motion to Compel discovery filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse the production of photographs of his Palm Beach home (specifically massage rooms), financial records, tax returns, passport/travel records, and medical records from Dr. Stephan Alexander. The defense argues that despite the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), the threat of federal prosecution remains real and substantial, particularly in districts outside the Southern District of Florida, and that the act of producing these documents would be testimonial and incriminating.
016-02.pdf
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
010.pdf
This is a motion filed by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a court order to allow him to attend mediation, deposition, and trial in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion notes that a prior no-contact order involving Carolyn Andriano might technically preclude this, but states that Plaintiff's counsel and Ms. Andriano have no objection. The document includes a certificate of service listing numerous attorneys involved in related cases.
009.pdf
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys argue for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), noting that the DOJ has seized boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to Epstein. The document also disputes delays in the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
010-06.pdf
This document is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's second amended supplemental response to discovery requests from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 29, 2016. It details Giuffre's legal representation history from 2009 to 2016, listing specific attorneys and cases including actions against Jeffrey Epstein, the US Government, and Alan Dershowitz. The document also contains objections to requests for financial records regarding payments from Epstein or media organizations, asserting attorney-client privilege and irrelevance.
073.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on November 28, 2009, by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) in her civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing opposes a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview—Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer since November 2005—who sought to avoid being deposed by claiming he had no knowledge of relevant facts. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview must be deposed because he worked for Epstein during the active Palm Beach Police investigation (2005-2006) and likely possesses knowledge regarding activities at the Epstein residence, especially since Epstein himself invoked the Fifth Amendment.
071.pdf
A 2009 legal motion filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein requesting permission to attend mediation in a case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a prior 'no contact order' exists regarding Andriano, but states that neither she nor her counsel object to Epstein's presence at depositions, mediation, or trial. The document includes a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in multiple related cases against Epstein.
069.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and employee of Jeffrey Epstein, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the civil case 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein'. Zinoviev claims he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began in November 2005, after the period of the alleged misconduct, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him.
050.pdf
This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
045.pdf
This document is a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe against Jeffrey Epstein on July 10, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff lists 23 specific interrogatories regarding Epstein's finances, properties, travel, and alleged sexual abuse of minors, all of which Epstein refused to answer by invoking his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The motion argues that Epstein's blanket refusals are improper and requests the court force him to answer or provide a privilege log.
032.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
027.pdf
This document is a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal submitted on May 29, 2009, by attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs request permission to file their response to Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal, or alternatively, request the court to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) so they can adequately respond. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing attorneys representing Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and various other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
025.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida, arguing for the right to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs contend that Epstein aims to reveal their identities to harass and intimidate them, and they cite various legal precedents and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to support their request for privacy due to the sexual nature of the crimes committed against them as minors. The document also includes a service list detailing the attorneys representing various parties in related cases against Epstein.
021.pdf
This document is a legal response filed by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) opposing a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview to avoid deposition. Zinoview, who worked as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer starting in November 2005, claimed he had no relevant knowledge of Epstein's legal matters. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview worked for Epstein during the police investigation period and likely has relevant observations, regardless of whether he discussed legal matters with Epstein.
016.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by third-party witness Igor Zinoviev, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Zinoviev, a driver and bodyguard for Epstein since November 2005, claims he has no relevant information regarding Epstein's criminal or civil cases, particularly concerning events prior to September 2005. The motion cites legal precedents regarding the scope of discovery and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) to argue against the deposition.
022.pdf
Legal document filed on May 18, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida stipulating the dismissal with prejudice of a civil lawsuit (Case No. 10-CV-80309) brought by Jane Doe No. 103 against Jeffrey Epstein. The document indicates that a settlement was reached between the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
020.pdf
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
016.pdf
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
015.pdf
This document is a motion filed on April 12, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the case 'Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffery Epstein'. The defense seeks to amend their previous Motion to Dismiss to clarify an argument regarding retroactivity, specifically stating that the criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g)) relied upon by the plaintiff did not exist during the time of the alleged abuse (Jan 2004 - May 2005). The plaintiff's counsel reportedly did not oppose this amendment.
012.pdf
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
006.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on March 23, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting an extension of time for Jeffrey Epstein to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 103. Epstein's legal team requests the deadline be moved from March 26 to April 5, 2010, citing workload from 'several other cases' filed in the same court in which Epstein is a defendant. The plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension.
004.pdf
This is a Summons in a Civil Case issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 23, 2010. The case (No. 10-80309) involves plaintiff Jane Doe 103 suing defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The summons directs Epstein to serve an answer to the complaint within 21 days via his counsel, Robert D. Critton, to the plaintiff's attorneys at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-15 | Paid | SEC | CMS Monitoring | $14.21 | Invoice #52339 for security monitoring services... | View |
| 2019-07-10 | Paid | SEC | CMS Monitoring | $14.00 | Outstanding balance on Invoice #51160 reference... | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity