S.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
This legal document is page 3 of a court filing from October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the court's reasoning for denying a defendant's request for attorney-conducted voir dire. The defendant argued for it based on significant pretrial publicity and the case's sensitive nature, but the court concluded that court-conducted voir dire is sufficient to ensure fairness and prevent potential prejudice, citing legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00002898.jpg
This document is Page 9 of a legal filing (Document 195) from April 5, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues that any records obtained via Rule 17(c) subpoenas must be marked confidential under a protective order and shared with the opposing party, citing that the rule does not allow for secretive evidence gathering. It references the reciprocal discovery obligations of Rule 16 and cites the precedent of United States v. St. Lawrence.
DOJ-OGR-00002891.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 195) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 5, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the limitations of Rule 17 subpoenas in criminal cases, arguing they cannot be used for broad discovery or to find leads, unlike in civil procedure. The text heavily cites legal precedents including *Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States*, *United States v. Purin*, and *United States v. Tagliaferro* to establish the standard for requiring document production.
DOJ-OGR-00002875.jpg
This legal document, dated March 29, 2021, is a filing from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It clarifies the role of the FBI New York Office in an investigation conducted by the FBI Florida Office, stating that the New York office provided only 'ancillary support' by interviewing four witnesses between 2007 and 2008. The document asserts that this assistance did not make the New York office part of the prosecution team and that such inter-office cooperation is common.
DOJ-OGR-00020141.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's ties to the United States, likely in the context of a bail hearing. The court acknowledges letters of support from the defendant's friends, family, and spouse, which aim to prove her strong connections to the country. However, the court remains unconvinced that she is not a flight risk, highlighting a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship as a significant tie, yet at the time of her arrest, she claimed to be getting divorced from him.
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of the jury convicting Ms. Maxwell based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, which would be a per se violation of her constitutional rights. The argument is supported by citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 148) dated February 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial is significantly impaired because the government has not disclosed the identities of the three accusers, forcing the defense to investigate blindly based on assumptions. The filing cites legal precedents (Strawberry, Bortnovsky, Cannone) to argue that the Court has the authority to compel this disclosure to prevent unfair surprise at trial, noting a previous request was denied in August 2020 as premature.
DOJ-OGR-00002879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing arguing that a subpoena issued by a defendant should be quashed. The filing contends that the subpoena fails to meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), as established in the case United States v. Nixon, because it is an overly broad "fishing expedition" seeking "all communications" with various individuals from the law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP.
DOJ-OGR-00002816.jpg
This legal document, dated March 22, 2021, is a filing in a criminal case arguing against the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) discovery requests. The filing contends that requests for communications about co-conspirator Jean Luc Brunel, fee agreements with victims Annie and Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer's complete teenage journal, and materials from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program are irrelevant and improper 'fishing expeditions' for impeachment material. The document cites case law to assert that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the relevance and admissibility of the requested evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002751.jpg
This document is Page 4 of a court filing (Document 165) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on March 9, 2021. The text is the Government's argument opposing the defendant's third request for bail, citing her extreme flight risk, substantial foreign ties (including citizenship in a non-extradition country), and lack of candor regarding finances. The Government argues that the defendant's offer to renounce citizenship and place assets in monitorship is insufficient to assure her appearance in court.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017902.jpg
This document is page 837 of a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The page details the court's rulings on motions to dismiss filed by various Saudi defendants, including the SAAR Network, Adel A.J. Batterjee, the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG), and members of the Saudi royal family (Prince Sultan, Prince Turki). While some motions were granted for lack of jurisdiction, others (such as those for SAAR Network and Batterjee) were denied, allowing claims to proceed. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was likely part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017892.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion concerning the "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" litigation, specifically addressing RICO claims against Arab Bank and the SAAR Network. The court dismisses the plaintiffs' claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) for failure to allege injury from investment of racketeering income and discusses the requirements for liability under § 1962(c) and (d), noting that defendants must have some part in directing the enterprise's operation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017870.jpg
This document is page 805 from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765), specifically regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' in the S.D.N.Y. It outlines the legal standards for establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants based on a 'conspiracy theory' under New York law (C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(2)). The text cites numerous precedents to explain that plaintiffs must prove a corrupt agreement, an overt act, intentional participation, and resulting damage to link a defendant to a conspiracy committed in New York. The document appears to be part of a production to the House Oversight Committee, likely included in an investigation file to establish legal precedent for jurisdiction over entities involved in complex conspiracies, though Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017856.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It discusses legal tests for sovereign immunity under the FSIA, specifically analyzing whether entities like the KDIC (Korea) and PIF (Saudi Public Investment Fund) qualify as organs of a foreign state or political subdivisions. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' bates stamp, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to investigations into foreign financial ties or the 9/11 litigation itself, though no specific mention of Jeffrey Epstein appears on this page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017854.jpg
This page is from a 2005 court opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) regarding the immunity of Saudi officials and entities under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court rules that Prince Sultan and Prince Turki are immune from suit for official acts. It also discusses the National Commercial Bank's (NCB) claim to immunity as a government instrumentality of Saudi Arabia, analyzing share ownership by the Public Investment Fund (PIF) and transactions involving the bin Mahfouz family.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017848.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the legal standards for jurisdictional discovery when sovereign immunity is asserted and begins detailing allegations against Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017846.jpg
This document is page 781 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the Southern District of New York concerning 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details procedural history, specifically oral arguments heard in October 2004 regarding motions to dismiss filed by various Saudi banking, corporate, and individual defendants (including the Binladin Group and Al Rajhi Bank) based on lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, suggesting it was part of a congressional inquiry, though no direct textual link to Jeffrey Epstein appears on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838.jpg
This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765) concerning the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', dated 2005. It outlines legal headnotes (53-60) regarding the court's decision that allegations against a Saudi Arabian Prince and the Saudi Royal Family—concerning business ties via Saudi Arabia Airlines and charitable donations allegedly funding terrorism—were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a Congressional document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017836.jpg
This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the litigation 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It lists legal headnotes (35-43) defining the standards for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in conspiracy cases under New York law. While part of a House Oversight production (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017836), the specific text discusses allegations against Saudi Arabian Princes regarding the 9/11 attacks and does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein, though such legal precedents regarding conspiracy and jurisdiction are often cited in complex international litigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023412.jpg
This document appears to be a page (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023412) from a Westlaw printout of the legal case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'. It contains footnotes 52 through 74, which cite various intelligence reports (CIA, UN, Interpol) and testimonies (Richard Clarke, Lee Wolosky) regarding Al Qaida, Usama Bin Laden, and terrorist financing. Footnote 70 specifically identifies officials of the Al Rajhi Bank as the 'Al Rajhi Defendants'. While the document is part of a House Oversight collection, there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023369.jpg
This document appears to be page 9 of a legal brief or research document (indicated by the Westlaw footer and Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023369) listing a Table of Authorities. It cites numerous legal cases primarily related to terrorism, banking liability, and civil procedure, including 'United States v. Bin Laden' and 'Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank PLC'. While titled under 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001', the document originates from a House Oversight Committee production, likely related to investigations into financial institutions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014115.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, from the law firm SDBS to Thomas E. Scott, Jr., regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The letter aggressively challenges the defense's discovery responses, accusing them of 'word play and gamesmanship' regarding document production, metadata, and definitions. The sender demands immediate production of documents and rejects the defense's attempts to limit discovery to a narrow timeframe, arguing that Dershowitz's alleged defamation and public denials were broad and unrestricted by time.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022310.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, containing a legal argument against a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule. The author contends that the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority by mandating that employers post a notice of employee rights, arguing that Congress did not delegate this specific 'gap-filling' power and that failure to post does not constitute an 'unfair labor practice' under the existing framework of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The document cites numerous court cases and legislative history to support the position that the NLRB's rule is an overreach.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022303.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, in which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) justifies its rule that an employer's failure to post a notice of employee rights is an unfair labor practice. The Board refutes arguments from various business and legal organizations that it is overstepping its authority, citing Supreme Court precedent for its interpretive flexibility and drawing parallels to similar notice requirements under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The document is part of a legal and administrative record and is unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity