new mexico
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Accuser 2
|
Location of incident |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie
|
Location of conduct |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Travel incident location |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Travel logistics |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Location of alleged conduct |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00031277.jpg
This document, an excerpt from an Albuquerque Tribune Online article, details political contributions from several sources. It outlines donations from businessman Perenchio to California Governor Gray Davis and others, and focuses on the $87,417 in financial backing provided to a candidate named Richardson by the Maloof family. The article also notes a $50,000 donation from BGK Equities III LLC, a real estate firm that leases office space to state agencies.
DOJ-OGR-00031241.jpg
This document is a web page from the Albuquerque Tribune Online, dated March 7, 2006, listing financial donations from various individuals and organizations. The donations range from $10,000 to $13,000 and include contributions from political action committees, companies, and private citizens across New Mexico, Texas, California, and Kansas. The specific recipient of these donations is not mentioned in the text.
DOJ-OGR-00031232.jpg
This document is a printout of an Albuquerque Tribune article (likely from Dec 2002) detailing campaign contributions to Bill Richardson, specifically from gambling and casino interests. It lists significant donations from The Downs (Paul Blanchard), Riviera Gaming Management, and the Pueblo of Sandia, as well as large funding from the Democratic Governors Association. The document also notes legal issues regarding back rent owed by The Downs to the New Mexico State Fair.
DOJ-OGR-00031231.jpg
This document is an archived printout of an Albuquerque Tribune article detailing campaign contributions to Governor-elect Bill Richardson (likely from late 2002 based on the URL and context). It highlights significant financial support from labor unions ($633,488 total), specifically AFSCME, and gambling interests ($648,392 total), specifically The Downs at Albuquerque. The document appears to be part of a 2017 Public Records Request to the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00031230.jpg
This document is a divider page from a larger set of records, dated July 26, 2017. It is part of a response to a public records request (No. 17-295) and is Bates-stamped 'DOJ-OGR-00031230'. A handwritten note, 'New Mexico Contributions', indicates the subject matter of the documents that likely follow this page.
DOJ-OGR-00031202.jpg
This document is a printout of an Albuquerque Tribune article detailing campaign contributions to Bill Richardson, likely during his run for Governor of New Mexico. It lists significant financial donations from gambling interests, including The Downs (Paul Blanchard), Riviera Gaming, and the Pueblo of Sandia, as well as large sums from the Democratic Governors Association. The text also notes legal issues regarding unpaid rent by The Downs to the State Fair and Richardson's new role as a federal liaison for the DGA.
DOJ-OGR-00031200.jpg
This document is a divider page from a larger set of records, likely produced in response to a public records request (No. 17-295) to the Department of Justice. A handwritten note, "New Mexico Contributions," indicates the subject matter of the subsequent documents. The page is dated 07/26/17 and is marked as page 27 of 135.
DOJ-OGR-00019866.jpg
This legal document provides background on a sealed indictment returned on June 29, 2020, against a defendant, identified as Maxwell. The charges, including conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors, stem from an alleged scheme with Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to sexually abuse underage girls at his properties in New York, Florida, and New Mexico. The document details Maxwell's alleged role in identifying, grooming, and abusing the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00019846.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021. It presents legal arguments for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on a defendant's ability to communicate with counsel and prepare a defense. The text analyzes case precedents *United States v. Clark*, *Stephens*, and *United States v. Robertson*, highlighting that even defendants with serious charges (like Robertson) were released to prepare for trial during the pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The attorney argues for a supplemental jury instruction concerning the territorial limits of New York law, which the judge rejects. The judge then raises concerns about potential trial interruptions from a health 'variant' and the need for jurors to plan for extended deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell is concerned the jury might convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, based on conduct that occurred solely in New Mexico for a charge under New York law and requests a supplemental instruction. The judge denies the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that the defense missed an earlier opportunity to limit the related testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017326.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving legal arguments over jury instructions for 'Count Four' (a transportation count). Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim debate how to address a jury question concerning whether flights to New Mexico can be considered for a charge based on New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The defense (Sternheim) argues the jury is confused about jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00017324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Moe. They are debating how to respond to a confusing note from the jury, as the placement of a comma in the jury's question drastically changes its meaning regarding responsibility for a flight to New Mexico. Ms. Moe argues that the note is too ambiguous to answer directly and suggests referring the jury back to their instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017323.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript recording a discussion between the Court and Ms. Menninger regarding jury instructions and legal interpretations of a specific count. They clarify whether the prosecution must prove aid in transportation specifically to New Mexico, with Ms. Menninger arguing that the location is not specific and could be any place where illegal sexual activity was intended, such as New York.
DOJ-OGR-00017322.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, regarding the legal standard for finding a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane'. The discussion specifically focuses on whether a flight to New Mexico must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' for illegal sexual activity to meet the criteria for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00017321.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding a note sent by the jury during deliberations. The debate centers on whether the jury is asking about the general legal concept of 'aiding and abetting' or specifically about Ms. Maxwell's role in arranging flights to and from New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00017320.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument concerning jury deliberations in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The discussion focuses on whether Maxwell arranged flights for a victim named 'Jane' to or from New Mexico, whether such travel constitutes a crime under Count Four (corrected from Count Two), and the confusion surrounding a specific note sent by the jury regarding these hypothetical facts.
DOJ-OGR-00017319.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge discuss a jury note regarding transportation and accountability for a return flight from New Mexico. The debate centers on whether Maxwell can be convicted based on arranging a return flight from an area where a victim, 'Jane,' claims sexual abuse occurred, as opposed to the initial flight to New Mexico which had alleged illegal intent.
DOJ-OGR-00017316.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the purpose of travel undertaken by a person named Jane. An unnamed speaker argues that Jane's return trip from New Mexico was not for illicit sexual activity because Mr. Epstein was not present, while another speaker, Ms. Moe, counters that the evidence is ambiguous as to which flight is being discussed. The conversation centers on interpreting Jane's intent and whether her travel meets the elements of a crime.
DOJ-OGR-00017313.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the Judge and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks a legal question about 'Count Four,' specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' on a return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00017244.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Charge to the jury) filed on August 10, 2022, detailing specific overt acts committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. It outlines incidents from 1996 through 2004 involving three specific victims (referred to as Jane, Annie, and Carolyn), including interstate travel for sexual abuse, unsolicited sexual contact in New Mexico, and the recruitment of minors for paid sex acts at the Palm Beach residence.
DOJ-OGR-00017243.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript detailing jury instructions regarding overt acts in a conspiracy charge. It lists specific allegations against Maxwell involving minors named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, describing events such as travel for sexual abuse and unsolicited massages in locations like New York, Florida, and New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00013906.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. Espinosa testifies about properties owned by Jeffrey Epstein, stating that when she began working for him, he owned Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, 9 East 71st Street in New York, and El Brillo in Florida. She also states that during her employment, Epstein acquired a Paris apartment and an island in St. Thomas, which was originally named Little Saint James but was later renamed Little Saint Jeffs.
DOJ-OGR-00013824.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Swain by Ms. Menninger. The questioning focuses on Swain's phone conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically whether they discussed Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein's dating life, and details regarding a trip to New Mexico involving individuals named Annie and Maria. Swain explicitly testifies that they never spoke with Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00013821.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Swain. Swain describes attempting to question a person named Annie about a trip she took to New Mexico, which occurred sometime before her return from Thailand and Vietnam in the summer of 1996. Annie was consistently evasive, refused to discuss the trip, and repeatedly stated, "I'm not going to let it ruin my life."
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity