Cruz
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Maypa
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
J. Epstein
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-10-22 | N/A | Inspection - Annual Cooling Tower Inspection | Cooling Tower | View |
| 2018-05-23 | N/A | Legionella Test - 90 day inspection | Cooling Tower | View |
| 2018-04-25 | N/A | Tower Cleaning - Cleaning & Disinfection | Cooling Tower | View |
| 2018-04-09 | N/A | Water Treatment - Cooling Tower Monthly Maintenance | Cooling Tower | View |
EFTA00000019.pdf
A maintenance log document detailing services performed on a cooling tower system throughout 2018 (April to December). The client listed is 'Merwin Dela Cruz - J. Epstein'. Services include monthly water treatment, Legionella testing, and cleaning/disinfection.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021653.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' (page 'v') from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 79), dated June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents and case citations used in the main document, including Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. The document bears a DOJ-OGR (Office of General Review) footer, indicating it was likely released via FOIA or a similar transparency process.
DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00005749.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists legal precedents, including numerous 'United States v.' cases from various circuit courts, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The table indicates the page numbers within the parent document where each authority is cited.
DOJ-OGR-00005753.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE dated October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of certain types of expert opinion testimony from law enforcement officers. Citing numerous legal precedents, the document contends that testimony regarding alleged conspiracies, coded communications, witness credibility, and a defendant's mental state (specifically mentioning Ms. Maxwell) constitutes improper expert opinion. The argument concludes that such testimony is particularly prejudicial because juries may give undue weight to evidence presented by government agents.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity