Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Fares

Person
Mentions
6
Relationships
0
Events
0
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.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg

This legal document is a court filing from April 24, 2020, discussing a motion by an individual named Thomas. The court denies Thomas's request for discovery related to his claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution, finding he has not met the high burden of proof required. The court dismisses Thomas's comparison to a 2005/2006 incident involving other officers, stating it is not relevant because Thomas is charged with making false statements, not with failing to conduct counts.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00022092.jpg

This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg

This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.

Legal filing - table of authorities
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