| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-19 | N/A | Discussion regarding access/clearance for 'Burke', interactions with staff involving Alex Spiro, ... | Unknown (likely NYC context) | View |
| 2011-07-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Burke, 2011 WL 2609837. | U.S. District Court for the... | View |
| 2011-07-01 | Court case | In United States v. Burke, a motion to dismiss an indictment based on a thirty-year pre-indictmen... | E.D.N.Y. | View |
This document is a Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law opposing a motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase's board regarding their oversight of Jeffrey Epstein. It alleges that the Board, including CEO Jamie Dimon, ignored red flags about Epstein's sex trafficking and financial crimes (such as massive cash withdrawals) to retain him as a client, failed to implement required BSA/AML monitoring systems, and violated a Deferred Prosecution Agreement related to Madoff. The plaintiffs argue that demand on the board is excused because a majority of directors face liability or lack independence.
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on January 25, 2021. The text argues legal standards for the 'Severance of Offenses,' citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14 and various precedents regarding when charges should be tried separately to avoid prejudice to the defendant. It lists numerous case citations including U.S. v. Mitan, U.S. v. Bradford, and U.S. v. Burke to support the argument that misjoined counts must be severed.
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'Severance of Offenses' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing various precedents to argue that counts should be severed if joinder prejudices the defendant. It discusses the legal standards for 'misjoinder' and 'substantial prejudice' required to grant a motion to sever.
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
This document is a Table of Authorities page (Page 3 of 19) from a court filing dated January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists twenty-one legal precedents (cases) cited in the brief, primarily from the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, covering dates from 1964 to 2011. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002281.
This document is page A-5675 of an index from a legal transcript dated February 15, 2012, related to the court case 'United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.' (Case 2:09-cr-00582-ABN). The index lists keywords alphabetically from 'backdating' to 'came' and provides the page and line number references from the full transcript. The document was filed with the court on March 24, 2012.
This document is a word index (concordance) page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, for the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as Exhibit A-5675 in the 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 24, 2022. The index lists names and terms appearing in the transcript, including significant mentions of 'Benhamou' (38 times), 'Brune' (48 times), 'Bronx' (43 times), and 'Bronxville' (47 times), along with their specific page and line citations.
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.
This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.
This document is a forensic extraction log of text messages exchanged on November 19, 2018, between 'jeeitunes@gmail.com' (a known Epstein alias) and a redacted individual. The conversation discusses access clearance for someone named Burke, mentions attorney Alex Spiro described as a 'stone cold killer,' and references a 'list of 50 names' that includes Leon Black. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
This document contains a log of five messages exchanged on August 2, 2018, between Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias e:jeeitunes@gmail.com) and a redacted individual who is a former Navy member. The conversation revolves around a proposed trip to Palm Beach for medical blood work facilitated by Epstein's friend at the Mayo Clinic, with specific references to 'Jewish doctors and lawyers' and crude remarks about 'Bill Burke.' The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.
This document is a forensic log of digital messages from June 3, 2019, between 'jeeitunes@gmail.com' (an alias for Jeffrey Epstein) and a redacted individual. The conversation includes a shared article defending Woody Allen and a discussion about legal logistics, specifically whether an individual named 'Darren' should send a letter regarding 'engagement for litigation services' to a person named 'Burke'. Epstein responds that his main lawyer handles those matters and he will sort it out.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity