| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
David Parse
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Sigrid McCawley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Peter Skinner
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Wayne A. Reaud
|
Geographic professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Boies
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
John Altorelli
|
Employment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein Estate
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Cunningham
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Daniel H. Weiner
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-13 | N/A | Cooley LLP announced hiring of former NY federal prosecutor. | New York | View |
| 2020-08-10 | N/A | Extended deadline for the 'Negotiation Period'. | N/A | View |
| 2020-08-10 | N/A | Deadline of extended Negotiation Period. | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-08 | N/A | Date of a public statement made by Blackfords/Prince Andrew's team regarding cooperation, which S... | Public Statement | View |
| 2020-05-04 | N/A | Nixon Peabody confirmed cancellation of summer program. | USA | View |
| 2019-10-01 | N/A | Filing of Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) 2019-43693 regarding persons associated with Jeffrey E... | New York | View |
This document consists of a Docketing Notice from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dated July 8, 2022, for the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426), and a Notice of Appeal and Criminal Docket from the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed July 7, 2022. It details Maxwell's conviction and sentencing, including multi-year imprisonment terms and a $750,000 fine for charges related to conspiracy to entice minors for illegal sex acts, transport minors for sexual activity, and sex trafficking, with some counts dismissed or deemed multiplicitous.
A legal letter dated August 5, 2025, from Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (representing the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein) to Judge Richard M. Berman. The letter states that the Estate takes no position regarding the Government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case, provided that the Government maintains its commitment to redact victim-related and personal identifying information.
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 Exhibit 1 filed in the case USVI v. JPMorgan Chase (related to Jeffrey Epstein), but the content is the January 2014 Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) and JPMorgan Chase regarding the Madoff Ponzi scheme. JPMorgan admitted to violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, specifically failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and failing to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) in the U.S. despite having suspicions about Madoff's returns. The bank agreed to forfeit $1.7 billion to the United States.
This document is an affidavit filed by Daniel H. Weiner on March 4, 2022, in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands regarding the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein. Weiner, a partner at Hughes Hubbard & Reed representing Co-Executor Darren K. Indyke, attests to his professional qualifications and billing rates ($1,315/hr in 2020, $1,251/hr in 2021, $1,450/hr current). Attached exhibits include his professional biography and a detailed ledger of fees charged between January 2020 and March 2021 related to 'GVI Motions and GVI Appeal,' totaling dozens of billable hours.
This document is 'Exhibit 2' filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on March 4, 2022, in case ST-2021-RV-00005. The content is a Wall Street Journal article from February 9, 2016, titled 'Legal Fees Cross New Mark: $1,500 an Hour'. The article discusses the rising billing rates of top corporate lawyers in the US, citing specific firms like DLA Piper, Proskauer Rose, and Kirkland & Ellis. It serves as evidence of market rates for legal services, likely submitted to support a fee application in the associated court case.
This document is a Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees filed by the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. The Co-Executors are requesting $112,216.90 in fees incurred while successfully defending against the Government of the Virgin Islands' (GVI) attempts to intervene in the probate action and freeze estate assets. The document details the history of the GVI's failed motions, the complex nature of the estate, the funding of the Victims' Compensation Program ($121 million+), and justifies the legal fees based on the attorneys' experience and standard rates.
This document is a Motion for No-Contact Order filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida on May 22, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that despite a state plea agreement prohibiting contact, Epstein's counsel refused to confirm he would not contact federal victims. The filing includes exhibits of correspondence between attorneys and a transcript of the 2008 plea conference where Judge Pucillo explicitly defined 'indirect contact' to include Facebook and MySpace.
This document is a legal reply letter dated December 16, 2019, from attorneys representing Alan Dershowitz to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. Dershowitz seeks to intervene in the civil case *Maria Farmer v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein* to strike specific allegations in the complaint he deems scandalous and irrelevant, and to request sanctions against Farmer and her legal team (Boies Schiller Flexner LLP). The letter argues that the allegations against Dershowitz have no bearing on Farmer's claims of battery and emotional distress against the Epstein Estate and are part of a 'campaign of personal animus'.
This document is a letter from Alan Dershowitz's legal counsel to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald requesting a pre-motion conference to intervene in the civil case 'Maria Farmer v. Estate of Jeffrey Epstein'. Dershowitz seeks to strike paragraph 39 of Farmer's complaint, which alleges she saw him at Epstein's New York mansion going upstairs with young girls brought by Ghislaine Maxwell. Dershowitz argues this allegation is demonstrably false based on chronology (claiming he didn't meet Epstein until after Farmer left) and is legally irrelevant to the estate case, serving only to defame him.
This document is a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on April 8, 2016, in a Florida Circuit Court case between Bradley J. Edwards/Paul G. Cassell and Alan M. Dershowitz. The plaintiffs withdraw their motion pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement but explicitly state that their client, Virginia Giuffre, reaffirms her allegations and that the withdrawal is not an admission that her allegations were mistaken. They concede that filing certain allegations in a separate Crime Victims' Rights Act case was a 'tactical mistake' that caused distractions.
This document is a press release and joint statement dated April 8, 2016, announcing the settlement of a defamation lawsuit between Professor Alan Dershowitz and attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. The attorneys acknowledged it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz on behalf of their client, Virginia Roberts, and withdrew those claims. Dershowitz withdrew his counterclaims regarding unethical conduct and reiterated his denial of the allegations, citing travel records as evidence of his absence during the alleged events.
This document outlines Ghislaine Maxwell's formal objections and responses to Virginia Giuffre's second request for production of documents in the 2015 civil case. Maxwell's counsel objects to numerous requests on grounds of privilege, relevance, and burden, specifically refusing to produce financial documents (tax returns, bank statements, asset lists) pending a motion for a protective order. The document also addresses requests for Joint Defense Agreements with Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, communications regarding sexual abuse allegations, and funding sources for the TerraMar Project, including any from the Clinton Foundation.
Legal declaration by attorney Bradley J. Edwards filed on June 13, 2016, in support of a motion to quash a subpoena from Ghislaine Maxwell. Edwards details his representation of Virginia Giuffre and the undue burden of reviewing over 200,000 emails for communications with journalists. He explicitly states that Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein share a joint defense agreement and mentions Giuffre's association with the organization 'Victims Refuse Silence, Inc.'
This document is a legal reply filed on June 4, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs are requesting a court order prohibiting Jeffrey Epstein and his agents from contacting them directly or indirectly, citing his status as a convicted sex offender and their fear of intimidation. The document also includes a service list detailing the legal representation for various parties, including Bruce E. Reinhart representing co-defendant Sarah Kellen.
This document is a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal submitted on May 29, 2009, by attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs request permission to file their response to Epstein's Motion to Stay under seal, or alternatively, request the court to unseal the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) so they can adequately respond. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing attorneys representing Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and various other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
This document is a legal reply filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida, arguing for the right to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs contend that Epstein aims to reveal their identities to harass and intimidate them, and they cite various legal precedents and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) to support their request for privacy due to the sexual nature of the crimes committed against them as minors. The document also includes a service list detailing the attorneys representing various parties in related cases against Epstein.
Legal document filed on May 18, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida stipulating the dismissal with prejudice of a civil lawsuit (Case No. 10-CV-80309) brought by Jane Doe No. 103 against Jeffrey Epstein. The document indicates that a settlement was reached between the parties, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
This document is an agreed motion filed on May 13, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiff requests a one-week extension to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because the parties are in the process of resolving the matter via settlement, which would render the motion moot. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, Co-Defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
This document is an agreed motion for an extension of time filed on April 22, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe No. 103 vs. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 10-80309-WJZ). Plaintiff's counsel, Katherine W. Ezell, requests an extension until May 13, 2010, to file a response to Epstein's motion to dismiss because she is leaving for a vacation in Italy the following day. The motion notes that Epstein's counsel, Robert Critton, agrees to the extension, and the document includes a service list of attorneys involved in this and related cases.
This document is a Motion to Transfer filed on April 1, 2010, by Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 103 in the US District Court, Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff seeks to transfer her case against Jeffrey Epstein to Judge Marra's division to consolidate it with other similar pending cases, specifically 'Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Epstein'. The document includes a service list detailing legal counsel for Epstein, co-defendant Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and plaintiffs in several related cases.
A Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on December 7, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 09-CV-80656). Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 102 and Defendant Jeffrey Epstein agreed to dismiss the action following a settlement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The document is signed by Robert Critton (representing Epstein) and Katherine W. Ezell (representing Jane Doe No. 102).
This document is a legal motion filed on May 29, 2009, in the Southern District of Florida by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs request leave to file their response to Epstein's motion to stay under seal because it references the confidential Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), or alternatively, to unseal the NPA. The document includes a comprehensive service list detailing the legal representation for Epstein (including Robert Critton and Jack Goldberger), Sarah Kellen (represented by Bruce Reinhart), and numerous other Jane Doe plaintiffs.
This document is a legal reply brief filed on May 29, 2009, by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 in the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs seek to proceed anonymously in their lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that revealing their identities would subject them to harassment, shame, and further trauma, particularly given their status as victims of sexual exploitation as minors. The filing also discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), statutory minimum damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and accuses Epstein of using the threat of publicity to intimidate victims into settling.
This document is a Motion for an Order for the Preservation of Evidence filed by Plaintiffs Jane Doe No. 101 and 102 against Jeffrey Epstein in May 2009. The motion requests the court to order Epstein to preserve evidence related to allegations of sexual abuse, specifically citing evidence seized during a 2005 police search and other electronic/physical records located across his six international properties. The document lists numerous attorneys involved in related cases and references Epstein's previous guilty plea in 2008.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity