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 |
064.pdf
A Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-80656). Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein agreed to dismiss the action following a settlement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 102).
062.pdf
This document is a motion filed by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting an extension until December 15, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The reasons cited for the extension include ongoing resolution negotiations and questions arising from the 'implosion' of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA firm.
059.pdf
This document is a motion filed on November 20, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting permission for Jeffrey Epstein to attend mediation in the case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a previous no-contact order exists regarding Andriano, but her counsel has no objection to Epstein attending the deposition, mediation, or trial. The document includes a service list detailing the attorneys involved in this and related cases, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
057.pdf
This document is a legal reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on November 16, 2009, regarding the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA). The filing notes that the Department of Justice seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes specifically related to Epstein cases. The document highlights scheduling conflicts involving the deposition of Herbert Stettin (RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer) and alludes to potential ethical or criminal issues within RRA that could impact the validity of the cases against Epstein.
056.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein on November 16, 2009. The motion requests an extension until November 27, 2009, for Epstein to respond to the complaint, citing that the parties are working together and are 'close to a resolution' of the case. The document includes a certificate of service listing the attorneys involved for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. and Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman).
055.pdf
This document is a Motion for Protective Order filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and Jeffrey Epstein's driver/bodyguard since November 2005. Zinoviev seeks to prevent or limit his deposition, arguing he has no knowledge relevant to the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began after the alleged events, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him. The motion cites legal precedents on the scope of discovery and includes a list of attorneys involved in various related cases.
053.pdf
This is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until November 16, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by 'Jane Doe No. 102' on May 1, 2009, citing that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. The document lists legal counsel for both sides, including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger for Epstein, and Robert Josefsberg and Katherine Ezell for the plaintiff.
051.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102. The document indicates that the parties are working together to potentially resolve the case. It lists legal counsel for both the plaintiff (Podhurst Orseck, P.A.) and the defendant (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman; Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.).
034.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on June 18, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80656) by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. Epstein requests an extension until July 5, 2009, to respond to a complaint filed by Jane Doe No. 102, citing the workload from multiple concurrent cases where he is a defendant. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension and lists the legal representatives for both parties.
024.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
022.pdf
This document is a legal reply brief filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs seek to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that revealing their identities would subject them to harassment, shame, and further trauma, particularly given their status as victims of sexual exploitation as minors. The filing also discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), statutory minimum damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and accuses Epstein of using the threat of publicity to intimidate victims into settling.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in May 2009. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to preserve evidence related to allegations of sexual abuse, specifically citing evidence seized during a 2005 police search and other electronic/physical records located across his six international properties. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in related cases and references Epstein's previous guilty plea in 2008.
006.pdf
Legal document filed on May 11, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 09-80656). Attorneys Robert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike of the firm Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman formally entered their appearance as counsel for the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in a civil suit brought by Jane Doe No. 102. The document includes a certificate of service listing other counsel involved, including Jack Alan Goldberger for the defense and attorneys from Podhurst Orseck, P.A. for the plaintiff.
002.pdf
A summons issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 1, 2009, for Case Number 09-80656. The summons is directed to Jeffrey Epstein, located at the Palm Beach County Stockade, notifying him of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe 102. It lists his defense counsel as Jack A. Goldberger and Robert D. Critton, Jr., and requires a response to the plaintiff's attorneys, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., within 20 days.
089.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for Case No. 09-CV-80591. The plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 101, and defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, agreed to dismiss the lawsuit following a settlement, the terms of which the court retains jurisdiction to enforce. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 101).
087.pdf
This document is a Motion for Extension of Time filed on December 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The defense requested an extension until December 15, 2009, to file a reply, citing ongoing settlement negotiations and the need to investigate the implications of the 'Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler, PA' firm implosion on the Plaintiff's counsel. The document notes that Plaintiff's counsel opposed this extension request.
086.pdf
This document is a response filed by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano on November 28, 2009, opposing a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview to prevent his deposition. Zinoview, who worked as Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer starting in November 2005, claims he has no relevant knowledge of legal matters involving Epstein. The Plaintiff argues that because Zinoview worked for Epstein during the active police investigation (2005-2006), he likely possesses relevant information regarding activities at the Epstein residence, and that a complete bar on his deposition is legally unjustified.
082.pdf
This document is a Reply filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in November 2009 requesting a permanent order for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), which was undergoing restructuring. The filing highlights that the Department of Justice had seized approximately 40 boxes of documents from RRA, including about 13 boxes related to Epstein cases, amidst concerns of 'serious ethical and potentially criminal issues' at the firm. The document also argues against delaying the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
080.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by third-party witness Igor Zinoviev, requesting a protective order to prevent his deposition in the case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Zinoviev, who worked as a driver and bodyguard for Epstein since November 2005, argues he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment began after the alleged events and he never discussed the criminal or civil cases with Epstein.
078.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 29, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until November 16, 2009, to file a reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The document indicates that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case. The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
076.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on October 15, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team requesting an extension of time until October 30, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to the motion to dismiss. The motion states that the parties are working together to find a resolution to the case and that the plaintiff's counsel agrees to the extension. The document includes a procedural history of filings and a service list of attorneys involved.
073.pdf
This document is a Notice of Agreement filed on September 8, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida court case Jane Doe 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff's counsel notifies the court that both parties have agreed to appoint Rodney Romano of Matrix Mediation, LLC as the mediator for the case. The document includes a certificate of service and a service list detailing the contact information for the attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendant.
070.pdf
This document is an 'Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time' filed on August 7, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's legal team requests an extension until October 15, 2009, to reply to the Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, citing that the parties are working together to find a resolution. The motion lists legal counsel for both sides, including attorneys from Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, and Podhurst Orseck.
064.pdf
This document is a 'Notice of Compliance' filed on July 28, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It pertains to multiple civil cases filed by 'Jane Doe' plaintiffs against Epstein. The filing states that while the court ordered the parties to agree on a preservation of evidence order, they were unable to reach a full agreement, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the attorneys representing the various plaintiffs and defendants, including Sarah Kellen.
057.pdf
This document is an unopposed motion filed on July 2, 2009, by Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-80591). Epstein's attorneys request an extension until August 21, 2009, to reply to Plaintiff Jane Doe 101's response to a motion to dismiss, citing workload from other cases involving Epstein. The document confirms that Plaintiff's counsel agreed to this extension via telephone and correspondence.
| 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