UNITE
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Pichler
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Han
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | United Bamboo Fashion Week Show | Hosfelt Gallery, 531 West 3... | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: Color of Change v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447 | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2009-01-01 | Legal proceeding | In Pichler v. UNITE, a third-party intervenor foundation appealed an order denying a motion to mo... | 3d Cir. | View |
013.pdf
A 'Plea in the Circuit Court' document from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, dated June 30, 2008. In this document, Jeffrey Epstein (represented by attorney Jack Goldberger) waives various legal rights, including the right to a jury trial and the right to remain silent, in relation to case numbers 06-CF 009454 AMB and 08-CF 009381 AMB. Notably, in section 11, Epstein specifically selects a program that is 'NOT spiritually based' regarding his sentence/probation.
20250714161434468_24-1073_Maxwell_Opp.pdf
This document is a legal brief filed by the United States Solicitor General in July 2025 opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The government argues that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida does not bar the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, as the agreement was contractually limited to the Florida district and Maxwell was not a party to it. The brief details the history of the Epstein investigation, the terms of the NPA, and relevant legal precedents regarding the scope of plea agreements binding different US Attorney's Offices.
017.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on February 13, 2020, in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF). Attorney Mary 'Molly' S. DiRago of Troutman Sanders LLP requests permission to represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, in a civil suit brought by Teresa Helm. The filing includes DiRago's affidavit of good standing and certificates from the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Northern District of Illinois confirming her bar status.
029.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on February 14, 2020, in the Southern District of New York. Attorney Mary 'Molly' S. DiRago of Troutman Sanders LLP requests permission to represent Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, the executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, in the case brought by Jane Doe 1000. The filing includes an affidavit from DiRago and certificates of good standing from the Illinois Bar.
016.pdf
This document is a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on February 13, 2020, in the case of Juliette Bryant v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney Mary 'Molly' S. DiRago of Troutman Sanders LLP requests permission to represent the Estate's executors, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn. The filing includes her affidavit and certificates of good standing from the Illinois Bar and the Northern District of Illinois.
EFTA00010075.pdf
This document is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection 'TECS - Person Encounter List' generated on January 23, 2020. It details 40 border crossing records for Jeffrey Epstein (DOB 01/20/1953) between November 1992 and September 2000. The records include commercial flights (British Airways, Air France, United, Qantas) and private travel (tail numbers 908JE, 505LS, 908G) into various US locations including JFK, Palm Beach, and the US Virgin Islands.
DOJ-OGR-00001769.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Dated September 3, 2020, it formally notifies the court of her intent to appeal the district court's September 2, 2020 decision, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The appeal is directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00000215.jpg
This is an Affidavit of Service filed in the Supreme Court of the United States for case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. On May 9, 2025, Rina Danielson served a 'Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner' upon the attorneys for both parties (David Oscar Markus and Solicitor General D. John Sauer) via mail. The document is stamped with DOJ bates number DOJ-OGR-00000215.
DOJ-OGR-00030367.jpg
This is a 'Plea in the Circuit Court' form from the State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein, case number 06-CF-001935 A MB. The document outlines the defendant's waiver of various rights (such as the right to a jury trial, confrontation of witnesses, and appeal) in exchange for a plea, signed by Epstein and his attorney on June 30, 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00001870.jpg
This is a letter dated October 29, 2020, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Warden Heriberto Tellez of the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The attorney is writing on behalf of her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to protest the 'extraordinarily restrictive conditions' of her detention, which are compared to solitary confinement and death row. The letter argues that these harsh measures are not a response to any threat Maxwell poses but are an overreaction by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to its failure to prevent the death of Jeffrey Epstein at a different facility.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in case 20-3061 (Maxwell appeal). The text argues that Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial discovery materials does not meet the strict requirements of the collateral order doctrine established by the Supreme Court. The Government distinguishes Maxwell's situation from cases she cited (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs.), noting those involved intervenors in civil cases rather than parties in criminal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.
DOJ-OGR-00019580.jpg
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on September 3, 2020, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is appealing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision from September 2, 2020, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The notice cites several legal precedents to argue that the denial is immediately appealable.
DOJ-OGR-00019414.jpg
This document is a jurisdictional statement from a legal filing, arguing that the court has the authority to review a district court's decision not to modify a protective order. It asserts this jurisdiction under the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites several legal precedents to support its claim. The document outlines the three requirements for an interlocutory order to be immediately appealable under this doctrine.
DOJ-OGR-00019384.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from September 16, 2020, argues that legal precedents cited by an individual named Maxwell are inapplicable to the current case. The author contends that the cited cases (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., and Brown v. Maxwell) are distinct because they all involve appeals by non-party intervenors seeking to modify protective orders, unlike the situation in the author's case. The document details these examples to demonstrate why appellate jurisdiction was appropriate in those specific instances but not in the present one.
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, likely by the prosecution or a respondent opposing an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the cases Maxwell cited in her notice of appeal are irrelevant ('inapposite') because they deal with third-party intervenors (like the press or the CFTC) seeking to modify protective orders, whereas Maxwell is a direct party to the case. It specifically distinguishes the current situation from *Brown v. Maxwell* and other precedents regarding appellate jurisdiction over protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00010132.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 6, 2012, analyzes a July 8, 2011 Memorandum of Law concerning the law firm Brune & Richard. It argues that the firm's lawyers had no professional duty to disclose information discovered in March and May because the relevant ethics rules require 'actual knowledge,' which the lawyers lacked. The discussion is framed by the receipt of a letter from 'juror Conrad' on June 20 and the adversarial nature of the legal system.
DOJ-OGR-00009453.jpg
This document is an exhibit (A-5849) filed on Feb 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), but originates from a 2012 filing in the 'United States v. Daugerdas' case (1:09-cr-00581-WHP). The text analyzes the ethical conduct of lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard regarding their knowledge of misconduct by 'juror Conrad' and whether they had a duty to disclose information discovered in March and May 2011. It concludes that the lawyers did not have 'actual knowledge' requiring disclosure under Rules 3.3(b) and 3.5(d).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019867.jpg
This document appears to be a social diary or newsletter entry from February 2017 (Oscar season), likely written by publicist Peggy Siegal (identified by the 'PEG-FILM' license plate). It details various high-profile Hollywood events, including a Haiti benefit, an A24 party, a UTA political rally protesting the Trump travel ban, and a sustainability dinner hosted by the Firths. The text highlights interactions with numerous celebrities like Meryl Streep, Damien Chazelle, and Barry Jenkins regarding their Oscar prospects.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026044.jpg
This document, stamped with a House Oversight file number, outlines the extensive influence of the Koch Brothers on the 2016 Trump Transition team and cabinet appointments. It details financial connections between Koch-affiliated organizations (like Freedom Partners) and key figures such as Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Betsy DeVos, and Rex Tillerson. The text explicitly advises buying Russian assets, predicting that sanctions will be lifted due to the new administration's ties to Russia and the oil industry.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026039.jpg
This document appears to be a political strategy memo or email analysis from late 2016 detailing the influence of the Koch Brothers on the incoming Trump administration transition team. It highlights numerous staff members with Koch ties, analyzes the appointment of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State in relation to Russian sanctions and oil deals, and outlines a predicted aggressive rollback of environmental regulations and climate policies.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026005.jpg
This document is an email chain from August 12, 2016, between Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias jeevacation@gmail.com) and attorney Reid Weingarten. Epstein forwarded a news article detailing a federal jury verdict where Emirates NBD was found not guilty of fraud in a $540 million lawsuit brought by InfoSpan. Weingarten responded to the news with 'This is a big deal,' suggesting the legal precedent or the parties involved were significant to their interests.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026717.jpg
This document is a photograph acting as an exhibit, marked with the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026717. It depicts the interior of a large parcel sorting facility featuring a massive wall of sorting bins. One employee is elevated on a yellow scissor lift attending to high shelves, while several other employees work at desks on the ground floor. The image contains a caption in the top right corner identifying the activity.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026613.jpg
This document appears to be an email forward or political circulare containing a biographical summary of former Congressman Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky. It outlines his political career in Iowa, his role in the Nixon impeachment hearings, his personal relationship with the Clintons, and his marriage to reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity