Contreras
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Andrew Patel
|
Client |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Inmates neighbors |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Yannella
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Inmate proximity |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Andrew Patel
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Donald Yannella
|
Lead counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Inmates |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Proximity inmate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Inmate neighbors |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Meeting with Johnny Contreras | MCC | View |
| 2019-08-21 | N/A | Scheduling of Proffer Session | TBD | View |
EFTA00034987.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York dated August 3, 2019, covering events from the previous day. It highlights significant staff shortages resulting in unassigned posts on the Morning and Day shifts, details specific inmate placements into the Special Housing Unit (SHU), and notes one redacted inmate on suicide watch with a companion. The report also lists inmate admissions, releases, and institution totals.
EFTA00029264.pdf
This document is an email chain from August and September 2019 between attorney Andrew Patel (representing inmate Johnny Contreras) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY). The correspondence arranges a 'proffer session' meeting on September 3, 2019, for Contreras to speak with investigators about Jeffrey Epstein's death. Contreras was reportedly housed in the MCC SHU on the same tier and across the hall from Epstein when he died and, while he did not witness the hanging, he offered to share his observations.
EFTA00029260.pdf
This document is an email chain between defense attorneys (Patel, Shellow, Yannella) and the US Attorney's Office (SDNY and EDNY) regarding inmate Johnny Contreras. Contreras was housed in the MCC SHU across the hall from Jeffrey Epstein at the time of Epstein's death. The attorneys arrange a 'proffer session' for September 3, 2019, at 1 St. Andrews Plaza, where Contreras acts as a witness willing to share his observations of the events surrounding Epstein's death, though he did not witness the hanging itself.
EFTA00018959.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 2019 between attorneys Andrew Patel and Jill Shellow, and US Attorneys (SDNY and EDNY), regarding inmate Johnny Contreras. Contreras was housed in the SHU at the MCC across the hall from Jeffrey Epstein at the time of Epstein's death. While Contreras did not witness the hanging, his lawyers offered his testimony regarding his 'observations,' leading to the scheduling of a proffer session with investigators.
EFTA00018957.pdf
An email chain between the US Attorney's Offices for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York regarding an offer of information from attorney Andrew Patel. Patel represents inmate Johnny Contreras, who was housed in the MCC SHU across the hall from Jeffrey Epstein at the time of Epstein's death. Contreras offered to speak to investigators about his observations, leading to an attorney proffer on August 20, 2019.
EFTA00017757.pdf
This document contains a roster of inmates and their corresponding registration numbers for various housing tiers (L, G, H, J, K, M). Jeffrey Epstein (Inmate 76318-054) is listed as being housed in L-Tier. The document serves as a snapshot of inmate housing assignments, likely within the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York.
DOJ-OGR-00001216.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from June 30, 2020, which denies a defendant's motion for bail. The court explains that a legal presumption in favor of detention applies, particularly because the defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim, which suffices to establish probable cause. The document clarifies that the defendant bears a limited burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption.
DOJ-OGR-00000785.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against granting pretrial release (bail) to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. The prosecution (The Government) contends that under federal law (§ 3142), the nature of the charges (sex trafficking of minors) creates a presumption for detention. The document further cites the Government's belief that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to the community and is likely to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice if released.
DOJ-OGR-00000473.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 18, 2019, argues against granting pretrial release (bail) to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. It cites legal statutes and precedents to establish a presumption against release due to the nature of the charges (sex trafficking of a minor) and the existence of a grand jury indictment. The document also references a letter from the Government which claims Mr. Epstein poses a danger to the community and is likely to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice if released.
DOJ-OGR-00002239.jpg
This document is a page from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for bail, explaining that under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), a presumption in favor of detention applies because the Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim. The document cites case law (Contreras and Jessup) to affirm that an indictment establishes probable cause and places a limited burden on the Defendant to produce evidence to counter the presumption of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
This document is a handwritten page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing legal arguments regarding statutes of limitations and definitions of sexual abuse. The author critiques the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 18 USC statutes (specifically §3283, §3509, and §2251), arguing that procedural rules and statutes of limitations are not comparable and citing various case law precedents to support the argument. It concludes with a note about Biden's 1990 Senate bill S. 1965.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity