Government
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-01-01 | N/A | Democratic protests crushed by Iran | Iran | View |
EFTA00032771.pdf
An email dated April 21, 2021, from a government official (likely US Attorney's Office SDNY) regarding a draft response letter to a court order ('Letter/suppression issue'). The email attaches a document titled '2021-04-21_Gov't_response_to_April_19_Order.docx' and indicates a filing deadline of 5:00 PM that day. The names of the sender and recipients are largely redacted.
EFTA00032215.pdf
This document is a series of email chains between attorney Michael Bachner and government prosecutors (including one named Alex) regarding an 'Attorney Proffer' for a client referred to as Ms. [Redacted]. The correspondence, dating from February to June 2020, discusses the logistics of scheduling interviews, which were complicated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key details emerging from the proffer discussions include the client admitting to visiting Epstein's New York and Palm Beach properties, as well as staying at Epstein's Paris apartment with her husband on one occasion. No flight logs or aircraft data are contained in this document.
EFTA00023039.pdf
An email dated July 27, 2019, from an undisclosed sender to undisclosed recipients. The email shares a YouTube link and claims the audio discloses details about organized crime, corruption, and Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connection to the British government. The subject line references Deutsche, Mafia, and Paedophilia.
EFTA00018183.pdf
An email chain from July 12, 2019, between officials at the Southern District of New York regarding Jeffrey Epstein's financial disclosure. An Assistant U.S. Attorney notes that Judge Berman denied their request for extra time to review the submission, quoting the judge's sarcastic docket note stating it is 'Hard to imagine it would take the Govt extra time to review submission.'
DOJ-OGR-00016898.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated August 10, 2022. Attorney Ms. Menninger requests the court take judicial notice of a 1996 case (96 CV 8307) involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ivan Fisher to establish facts regarding Epstein's residences. The text reveals that Epstein's residence at East 69th Street was leased from the U.S. Government (who seized it from the government of Iran) starting in 1992, a detail used to challenge the timeline of a witness named 'Jane' regarding which property she visited between 1994 and 1996.
DOJ-OGR-00016371.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, documenting the cross-examination of witness A. Farmer by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on a prior statement Farmer made to government agents on May 9, 2020, regarding a massage involving Epstein; the defense attempts to establish that Farmer previously characterized the event as 'awkward and uncomfortable' but 'not explicitly sexual,' which the witness disputes as being the agents' notes rather than her exact words. The witness confirms she felt Epstein could see her during the massage.
DOJ-OGR-00002186.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) opposing bail for the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It details her evasion of FBI agents during her arrest, including fleeing and wrapping a phone in tin foil, and argues she prioritized private security over law enforcement. Additionally, it asserts she was deceptive with Pretrial Services regarding her finances, possessing 'vast resources' far exceeding the $3.8 million she initially disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00002121.jpg
This document is Page 26 of a legal filing (Document 97-21) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It contains a table summarizing procedural timelines and statutory rules under the UK's Extradition Act 2003, specifically detailing scenarios where a person consents to extradition versus those requiring a hearing. The document outlines the roles of the Secretary of State and the Extradition Judge in extending deadlines and ordering removal.
DOJ-OGR-00001819.jpg
This legal document, filed on November 6, 2020, is a motion from the Government detailing a delay in producing discovery evidence from 62 electronic devices seized from Epstein. The Government explains that its outside vendor will not meet the November 9 deadline and will likely complete the work by November 19. The document outlines the subsequent unsuccessful negotiations with the defense for an extension, detailing the defense's four conditions and the Government's agreement to some (extending motion deadlines, providing a laptop) but rejection of others (providing names of minor victims and Jencks Act material).
DOJ-OGR-00022047.jpg
This document is a cover page for 'Exhibit B' contained within a larger court filing. It is identified as Document 33, filed on April 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (United States v. Jeffrey Epstein). The page contains a Department of Justice bates stamp at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00009220.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that Juror No. 50 should not be given access to a sealed questionnaire prior to a potential hearing, as it might allow him to fabricate excuses. The defense concludes that the prosecution is applying a double standard regarding juror misconduct and asserts that Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the juror's presence, requesting the court vacate the conviction (implied by cut-off text).
DOJ-OGR-00010503.jpg
This document is a separator page designated as 'Exhibit F'. It is part of a larger court filing (Document 663) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 15, 2022. It bears a Department of Justice production stamp number DOJ-OGR-00010503.
DOJ-OGR-00010241.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, involving post-trial questioning of a juror regarding potential bias. The judge asks the juror if their personal experience with prior sexual abuse affected their ability to be impartial, assess witness credibility, or if they held bias against Ms. Maxwell or in favor of the government. The juror consistently denies any bias or inability to judge the evidence solely on its merits.
DOJ-OGR-00003044.jpg
This legal document page outlines the Fourth Amendment's third-party doctrine, which generally holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It cites key Supreme Court cases like Miller and Smith to support this doctrine, while also discussing the narrow exception for cell site location information established in the Carpenter case. The document concludes by emphasizing that a defendant bears the burden of proving, through sworn evidence, that their own rights were violated to have standing to challenge a search.
DOJ-OGR-00005908.jpg
This document, an excerpt from an academic review filed in a legal case, discusses the need for a clearer definition of sexual grooming of children. It proposes a new definition that encompasses preparing the child, adults, and environment for abuse, and critiques existing theories of child sexual abuse for largely ignoring the grooming phenomenon. The text emphasizes that a better understanding is crucial for effective legislation, prevention, and treatment, referencing the UK's Sexual Offences Act 2003 as an example of legislative action.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019228.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal letter addressed to the Honorable Mark Filip on May 19, 2008, arguing against the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The text utilizes testimony from redacted witnesses to claim that no interstate commerce laws were violated, that the women lied about their ages (claiming to be 18), that no coercion or force was used, and that encounters were often non-sexual massages. It also critiques the conduct of federal prosecutors and the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031764.jpg
This document is an email chain from August 2018 in which Reid Weingarten forwards a Washington Post article to Jeffrey Epstein (Jeffrey E.). The article details a DOJ investigation into GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy regarding alleged influence peddling with the Trump administration involving China and Malaysia. The email is marked with 'High' importance.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022072.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the book 'Filthy Rich' (pages 102-103) contained within a House Oversight evidence file. It details Jeffrey Epstein's early career transition after leaving Bear Stearns, specifically focusing on his involvement in recovering funds from the collapse of Drysdale Government Securities. The text highlights his relationship with Ana Obregón, who introduced him to high-society connections and gave him power of attorney, allowing him to work with Assistant US Attorney Andrew Levander on the fraud investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022070.jpg
This document contains pages 100 and 101 of a book (likely by James Patterson, given the partial header 'TERSON') discussing Jeffrey Epstein's history. Chapter 24 focuses on 1982, detailing Epstein's meeting with Spanish actress Ana Obregón. It provides background on Obregón's wealthy father and connects the timeline to the collapse of Drysdale Securities Corporation and its subsidiary's $160 million default in May/June 1982.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026748.jpg
This document is a program page, likely from the 2017 Swedish American Life Science Summit (visible in watermark), obtained from House Oversight files. It lists Joe Biden as the Keynote Speaker representing the Biden Cancer Initiative. The list of speakers includes prominent scientists and executives, notably Dr. William A. Haseltine, a known associate in the Epstein network, representing ACCESS Health International. The document also lists presenting companies in the life sciences sector.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017422.jpg
This document appears to be page 335 of a manuscript or book included in a House Oversight production (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017422). The text provides a critique of human rights organizations, specifically Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, accusing them of anti-Israel bias and ignoring abuses by authoritarian regimes like Iran. A substantial footnote details a confrontation between the author and Amnesty International researcher Donatella Rovera regarding a 2005 report on honor killings, where the author challenges the lack of statistical data linking such violence to Israeli occupation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017212.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal memoir or manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz) discussing the legal representation of Julian Assange. The text details the author's initial communications and a face-to-face meeting with Assange to discuss potential extradition to the United States. It focuses heavily on defending Assange's status as a journalist by comparing his methods and the 'dropbox' technology of Wikileaks to established journalists like Seymour Hersh and Bob Woodward.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017134.jpg
This document is a page from a memoir or manuscript (likely Alan Dershowitz's, given the specific biography of clerking for Bazelon and Goldberg). It details the narrator's time at Yale Law School, conflicts with professors due to his 'chutzpah,' and his subsequent clerkships with Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg in Washington, D.C., between 1962 and 1964. The text mentions historical events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and MLK's 'I have a dream' speech.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018104.jpg
This document appears to be page 20 of a policy paper or geopolitical analysis report stamped by the House Oversight Committee. The text analyzes the complexity and uncertainty surrounding a potential war between the U.S. and Iran, arguing that any military action would likely escalate beyond a simple operation into a major conflict with high costs. It details the lack of knowledge regarding Iranian decision-making protocols and nuclear program status.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity