U.S. Court of Appeals
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-03-24 | Court filing / appeal record transmission | Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files... | U.S. District Court, Southe... | View |
| 2019-07-23 | Legal filing | The electronic filing and transmission of the certified indexed appeal record for Jeffrey Epstein... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Holding in Hemp Industries Association v. DEA enjoining DEA enforcement of 2003 amendment. | Ninth Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000877.jpg
This document is an electronic filing notice from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, dated March 24, 2021. It informs recipients that the appeal record for the case USA v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's Notice of Appeal, has been electronically transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The notice also includes important information regarding PACER access fees and the policy for obtaining free electronic copies of court documents for legal professionals.
DOJ-OGR-00000863.jpg
This document is a court docket entry from Case 21-770, dated March 24, 2021. It records two types of actions: the electronic transmission of Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal record to the U.S. Court of Appeals (USCA), and the sealing of three separate documents (numbered 174, 175, and 176) which were placed in a vault.
DOJ-OGR-00000858.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 21-770, detailing legal activities related to Ghislaine Maxwell between January 12 and January 25, 2021. The entries record the transmission of an appeal, a dispute over Maxwell's access to a laptop for discovery review involving the Bureau of Prisons, and the filing of numerous pretrial motions by her legal team to dismiss various charges. The document highlights the procedural back-and-forth between the defense, the court, and the Bureau of Prisons in the pretrial phase of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000825.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from Case 19-2221, detailing legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein between July 16 and July 23, 2019. Key events include the filing of letters by Epstein's attorneys regarding bail, the appearance of several new attorneys, a bond hearing on July 18 where bail was denied by Judge Richard M. Berman, and the subsequent filing of a Notice of Appeal by Epstein. The document lists all parties present at the hearing, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agents.
DOJ-OGR-00019264.jpg
This document is a 'Notice of Electronic Filing' from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, dated September 9, 2020, concerning the case USA v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It confirms that the certified indexed record regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's Notice of Appeal was transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The notice lists the attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution (DOJ) who received electronic notification of this filing.
DOJ-OGR-00019819.jpg
This legal document is a court docket entry for Case 21-58, filed on March 29, 2021. It details several actions that occurred on March 24, 2021, including the electronic transmission of Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal record to the U.S. Court of Appeals and the placement of three separate sealed documents (174, 175, and 176) into a vault.
DOJ-OGR-00019795.jpg
This legal document is a court docket entry dated March 24, 2021, for Case 21-58. It records two types of actions: the electronic transmission of Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal record to the U.S. Court of Appeals (USCA) and the placement of three separate sealed documents (numbered 174, 175, and 176) into a vault.
DOJ-OGR-00019790.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from January 2021 regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details legal proceedings including the filing of multiple motions to dismiss charges and request separate trials, the assignment of an appellate case number (21-0058), and a dispute between the Court and the Bureau of Prisons regarding Maxwell's access to a laptop for reviewing discovery materials. Attorneys Mark Cohen, Christian Everdell, and Jeffrey Pagliuca are listed as filing documents on Maxwell's behalf.
DOJ-OGR-00019771.jpg
This document is a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated March 24, 2021. It confirms that the certified indexed record regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal was transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The notice lists the attorneys for both the defense and the prosecution who received electronic notification of this action.
DOJ-OGR-00019769.jpg
This document is a court docket entry for Case 21-58, dated March 24, 2021. It records two main activities: the electronic transmission of Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal record to the U.S. Court of Appeals (USCA) and the placement of three separate sealed documents (numbered 174, 175, and 176) into a vault.
DOJ-OGR-00019741.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a court notice filed on January 26, 2021, regarding Case 21-58 (associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell proceedings). The clerk notifies the filing party of a defect, specifically that they used an 'Incorrect Filing Event' and must instead use 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance.' The notice warns that failure to correct this error could result in the document being stricken or the appeal being dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00019735.jpg
This document is a court record dated January 12, 2021, detailing the transmission of the appeal record and certified indexed electronic files concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's Notice of Appeal (document 113) to the U.S. Court of Appeals. It is part of Case 21-58 and is page 20 of 20, bearing the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00019735.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017721.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article attached as an exhibit in a House Oversight investigation, bearing the name of Epstein attorney David Schoen. The text discusses the legal limitations of the Victims' Rights Act and the Crime Victims' Rights Act, specifically analyzing the *United States v. McVeigh* (Oklahoma City bombing) case where victims were denied certain rights despite statutory protections. It argues that statutory measures often fail due to judicial interpretation and bureaucratic inertia, leading advocates to push for a constitutional amendment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024706.jpg
This document is page 70 of a December 2017 Cannabis Investment Report by Ackrell Capital, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. It details the legal landscape of THC under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), outlining the history of DEA regulations, the 2004 Ninth Circuit court ruling regarding synthetic vs. natural THC, and federal penalties for violations including asset seizure. The report also discusses the DEA's 2016 policy shift intended to expand registered cannabis cultivators beyond the University of Mississippi's long-standing monopoly, noting that while applications were accepted, no new registrations had been issued at the time of the report.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, detailing the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) rules regarding an employer's failure to post employee rights notices. It discusses why this failure is an unfair labor practice and justifies the equitable tolling of the six-month statute of limitations for filing charges when required notices are not posted. Despite the prompt's framing, the document's content is entirely about U.S. labor law and has no connection to Jeffrey Epstein; the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022304' is a Bates number, likely indicating it was an exhibit in a congressional document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020382.jpg
This document is page 230 of a larger report, likely from the House Oversight committee, and consists entirely of endnotes or citations. The citations reference news articles, government hearings, books, and legal filings from 2013 to 2017, all focused on the national security implications of the Edward Snowden leaks. The document contains no information related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity