Difeaux
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998-01-01 | Legal decision | Decision in the case United States v. Difeaux, 163 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 1998). | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1998-01-01 | Legal proceeding | Court case: United States v. Difeaux | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021830.jpg
This document is a legal filing (Case 22-1426) arguing for an en banc review of a panel decision. The core argument is that the precedent set by United States v. Annabi, which limits a plea agreement's scope to a single U.S. Attorney's office by default, conflicts with the broader, long-standing legal principle that plea agreements should be construed strictly against the government. The filing cites several other cases to demonstrate this tension with established circuit and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
DOJ-OGR-00021829.jpg
This document is page 'iv' of a legal filing, specifically Document 117 in Case 22-1426, dated November 1, 2024. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various court cases and statutes that are cited within the main body of the document. The citations include references to federal court decisions from various circuits and the Supreme Court, along with federal statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00021760.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on July 27, 2023, arguing for the enforcement of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The text contends that because the Government drafted the NPA with unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities should be resolved against the Government, and that Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the agreement before his death. It specifically mentions the 'co-conspirator clause' being understood as global and argues the Government cannot retroactively restrict the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021759.jpg
This legal filing argues that the District Court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Ms. Maxwell. The author contends the court ignored key evidence from the OPR and improperly applied a rule of construction, ultimately failing to resolve ambiguities in the agreement in favor of Ms. Maxwell as required by law. The document cites precedent from the Second Circuit to support the necessity of such a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00021748.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and statutes cited within the main document, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed primarily involve the United States as a party against various individuals and corporations in different federal courts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity