Pierre-Louis
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-08-09 | Legal case | The date of the United States v. Pierre-Louis case cited in the footnote. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2018-08-09 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Pierre-Louis. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Court case | In the case of Pierre-Louis, a motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay was denied. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001493.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the detention of a defendant by highlighting her characteristics as a significant flight risk. The prosecution points to the defendant's extensive international ties, including being born in France, raised in the United Kingdom, and holding citizenship and passports for the US, UK, and France. Her frequent international travel, including at least fifteen flights in the last three years, and her financial means are presented as evidence supporting the argument that she could easily flee and live abroad.
DOJ-OGR-00000952.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the detention of a female defendant (identified by context as Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution argues she is a significant flight risk due to her wealth, multiple citizenships (US, UK, France), and possession of three passports. It notes she has taken at least 15 international flights in the last three years to locations including the UK, Japan, and Qatar.
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
DOJ-OGR-00019870.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the detention of the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines her flight risk due to her 'extensive international ties,' noting she holds citizenship and passports for the US, UK, and France. It cites CBP records showing frequent travel, including 15 international flights in the prior three years to locations like Japan and Qatar.
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a Defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution. The prosecution asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the high legal standard for proving prejudice, citing case law. The Defendant's claims are based on the loss of documentary evidence (flight, financial, phone, and property records related to Epstein) and the deaths of four potential witnesses (architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham).
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 45 of a brief, arguing that the defendant has failed to prove the government improperly delayed an indictment. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit to establish that a defendant must show not only prejudice from a delay but also that the government intentionally caused the delay to gain a tactical advantage. The argument asserts that without meeting this high standard, the defendant's motion to dismiss should fail.
DOJ-OGR-00009602.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the unavailability of certain witnesses. The filing contends that the defendant has failed to prove these witnesses (architects Pinto and Salhi) were 'key' or that their testimony would have been irreplaceably helpful. It further points out that the defendant had the opportunity to, and did, cross-examine other employees of Epstein, such as Juan Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers, to establish facts about the defendant's role and time spent at Epstein's residences.
DOJ-OGR-00003017.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in which the prosecution (Government) argues against a motion by the defendant, Maxwell, to dismiss her indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The Government cites several legal precedents (Pierre-Louis, Burke, Carbonaro) to argue that the defendant has failed to show the delay was improper or for a tactical advantage. The document also addresses Maxwell's specific claim that the Government delayed the indictment to benefit from a separate civil litigation involving Giuffre, a claim the Government refutes.
DOJ-OGR-00003005.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing (Government's opposition) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The prosecution argues that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay—specifically citing dead witnesses, lost Epstein employees, and corrupted memories—are insufficient to warrant dismissal based on established legal precedents. The document cites various case laws (Marion, Snyder, Iannelli, King) to support the position that fading memories or unavailable witnesses are inherent in delays and do not automatically constitute actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00002954.jpg
This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity