Weingarten
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Eric H. Holder Jr.
|
Friend |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Eric H. Holder Jr.
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
jeeitunes@gmail.com
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
jeeitunes@gmail.com
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
U.S.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Meeting of Holder and Weingarten during their early years at the Justice Department. | Justice Department | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | In *Weingarten*, the Second Circuit considered, but did not ultimately reach, the issue of whethe... | N/A | View |
| 2019-08-05 | N/A | Intensive legal visits for Jeffrey Epstein. | MCC New York | View |
| 2019-02-13 | N/A | Breakfast meeting with Weingarten | Current location of sender | View |
| 2018-04-10 | N/A | Weingarten visit/meeting | Unknown | View |
| 2017-01-01 | N/A | Decision rendered in Weingarten v. U.S. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
| 2017-01-01 | Legal case | The case of *Weingarten v. United States*, 865 F.3d 48, 58–60 (2d Cir. 2017) is cited as a Second... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00000015.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) affirming a District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on timeliness. The court rejects Maxwell's arguments regarding the statute of limitations and the applicability of the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, ruling that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations. The document cites legal precedents including Weingarten v. United States and United States v. Sampson.
DOJ-OGR-00021060.jpg
This document is page xii of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court cases and federal statutes (U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code) that are cited as legal precedent or authority within the main document, along with the corresponding page numbers where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00020775.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes whether a statute can be retroactively applied to prosecute the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that applying the PROTECT Act does not have impermissible retroactive effects because it did not deprive Maxwell of any vested rights, as the original statute of limitations had not expired when the Act was passed. The document also dismisses Maxwell's fairness argument as a policy disagreement with Congress and affirms that the government's delay in bringing charges did not violate due process, citing the statute of limitations as the primary safeguard against stale charges.
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-00021893.jpg
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to federal statute § 3283, enacted as part of the PROTECT Act, applies retroactively. The document asserts that the clear text of the amendment, which eliminates the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, shows Congress's intent to cover past conduct, and therefore applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021892.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court opinion, addresses arguments made by a defendant named Maxwell. The court rejects a 'categorical approach' for determining if offenses involved sexual abuse, citing testimony from a victim, 'Jane', about being abused as a minor across state lines. The document then introduces Maxwell's second argument: that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations because a 2003 amendment to § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00021891.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal ruling filed on December 2, 2024 (Case 22-1426), likely from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirms the District Court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Three and Four of her indictment. The court rules that the offenses involving sexual abuse of minors fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and that the 2003 amendment to this statute was correctly applied retroactively.
DOJ-OGR-00021809.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses two key arguments. First, it affirms that charges involving the sexual abuse of a minor ("Jane") transported across state lines fall under § 3283. Second, it addresses an argument by Maxwell that certain counts are time-barred because a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations in § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court's test in 'Landgraf v. USI Film Products'.
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
DOJ-OGR-00021708.jpg
This document is page 61 of a legal brief filed on June 29, 2023 (Case 22-1426), likely by the government in response to an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that case law cited by Maxwell regarding the 'essential ingredient' test and statutes of limitations (specifically Bridges, Scharton, and Noveck) is distinguishable and inapplicable to her case involving sexual abuse of a child (18 U.S.C. § 3283). It asserts that Congress intended a broader application for child sexual abuse statutes compared to the fraud statutes discussed in the cited cases.
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-00021702.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, presents an argument regarding the application of Section 3283 to charges against Maxwell for transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity. Maxwell contends the statute doesn't apply because a completed sex act isn't an element of the charge, but the document counters that trial evidence, including testimony from a victim named Jane, established that her offenses did involve completed sex acts. A footnote adds that Judge Nathan found another charge, Count Six, to be timely based on the retroactive application of a different statute, § 3299.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021659.jpg
This document is page 'xi' of a legal filing, specifically Document 79 in Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and U.S. Code statutes that are cited within the larger document, along with the corresponding page numbers for each reference.
DOJ-OGR-00021112.jpg
This document is page 65 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. The text presents a legal argument regarding statutory interpretation, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or a 'case-specific approach' should apply to 8 U.S.C. § 3283. The brief argues that the District Court erred by using a case-specific approach, citing conflicts with Supreme Court precedents such as *Nijhawan v. Holder*, *James v. U.S.*, and *Kawashima*.
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
This page from a legal brief (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erroneously relied on the non-controlling case *Weingarten v. U.S.* regarding the statute of limitations (specifically § 3283 vs § 3282) and Mann Act violations. The text analyzes the legislative history of the 2003 amendment to argue that the statute was intended for cases involving the actual abduction and rape of a child, distinguishing it from crimes that do not categorically involve minor abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00003000.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues against using a 'categorical approach' to interpret the phrase 'offense involving' in Section 3283. It cites several legal precedents, most notably Weingarten v. United States, to counter an argument made by an individual named Maxwell. The document asserts that Congress intended a broad application of the statute and that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing or immigration contexts, is not appropriate here.
DOJ-OGR-00002995.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and statutes of limitations. The author argues that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to retroactively extend a limitations period for prosecutions that are not yet time-barred, citing numerous legal precedents like Falter v. United States and Stogner v. California. The document concludes that applying Section 3283 retroactively in this case is lawful and dismisses the defendant's contrary assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00002994.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, analyzes the permissibility of applying statutes of limitation retroactively. It discusses several Second Circuit precedents, distinguishing between impermissibly reviving time-barred claims (*In re Enterprise Mortgage*) and permissibly altering filing periods for live claims (*Vernon*). The text also references an opinion by Judge Learned Hand on the fairness of extending an active criminal statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002960.jpg
This document is page 26 of 239 from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing legal precedents (case law starting with W and Z) and a comprehensive list of Federal Statutes (18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C.) referenced in the filing. The statutes cited include laws regarding sex trafficking (§ 1591), coercion/enticement (§ 2422), transportation of minors (§ 2423), and child victims' rights (§ 3509), which are central charges in the Maxwell/Epstein proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against the retroactive application of a 2003 Amendment to the alleged offenses of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that Congressional intent was clear in rejecting retroactivity and that applying the amendment would have impermissible effects. The argument is supported by legal precedents, including Landgraf, Toussie, and Gentile, which favor interpreting criminal statutes of limitation in a way that provides 'repose' for the defendant.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027275.jpg
This document is a forensic log of an iMessage conversation from April 10, 2018, between 'jeeitunes@gmail.com' (associated with the user 'jee', likely Jeffrey Epstein) and a redacted individual. The conversation concerns legal representation, with the redacted individual suggesting Dershowitz will be the 'next lead lawyer,' a notion Epstein rejects ('I hope that is a joke') before stating he has 'Weingarten coming' instead.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025421.jpg
This document is a forensic log of text messages exchanged between 'jeeitunes@gmail.com' (a known alias for Jeffrey Epstein) and a redacted individual in February 2019. The conversation touches on political commentary regarding America's priorities and coordinates a breakfast meeting involving an individual named 'Weingarten' for the upcoming Saturday. The document originates from a House Oversight Committee investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026444.jpg
This document is an email sent from Jeffrey Epstein ('JEE') to Leon Black on May 23, 2017. The email provides information about a 'high-powered attorney' named Weingarten, noting his professional background, his connection to the Democratic party, and his close friendship with former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The email concludes by mentioning that 'four finalists' and the White House had no comment on an unspecified matter.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity