Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Saipov

Person
Mentions
6
Relationships
0
Events
1
Documents
3
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
No relationships found for this entity.
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2020-02-27 N/A Cited case event: United States v. Saipov decision. S.D.N.Y. View

DOJ-OGR-00000741.jpg

This is a court order from the Southern District of New York dated July 25, 2025, presided over by Judge Richard M. Berman in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The order denies a motion to intervene submitted via letter by MSW Media, Inc., citing legal precedents including United States v. Aref and United States v. Saipov, though the court notes it will consider the views expressed in the letter.

Court order
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg

This document is Page 2 of a legal filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 18, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding jury selection (*voir dire*), citing Second Circuit precedents to argue that the court, rather than attorneys, should conduct the questioning of potential jurors to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The filing asserts that the defendant (Maxwell) has provided no persuasive reason to deviate from this customary practice.

Legal filing / court order (page 2 of 5)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg

This legal document is page 3 of a court filing from October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the court's reasoning for denying a defendant's request for attorney-conducted voir dire. The defendant argued for it based on significant pretrial publicity and the case's sensitive nature, but the court concluded that court-conducted voir dire is sufficient to ensure fairness and prevent potential prejudice, citing legal precedents.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search