DOJ-OGR
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Rick Ricarey
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00021943.jpg
This document is the second page of a legal Appearance Bond, filed on November 19, 2019, for case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. It contains declarations made under penalty of perjury by the defendant and sureties regarding property used to secure the bond. The page is signed by Tova Noel and Sylvia Ephraim (as surety/property owner), and approved by court officials including a Clerk of Court and AUSA Nicolas Landsman Roos.
DOJ-OGR-00021930.jpg
This legal document, filed on November 19, 2019, in the Southern District of New York, outlines the bail conditions for defendant Tova Noel. She was released on a $100,000 personal recognizance bond with several conditions, including travel restrictions, surrender of travel documents, and a specific prohibition against contacting her co-defendant without counsel present. The document also schedules future court dates, including a conference on November 25, 2019, and a preliminary hearing on December 19, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021879.jpg
This document is Page 2 of an appellate court decision filed on December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejected Maxwell's five arguments on appeal, including her claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida protected her from prosecution in New York. The court affirmed the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021869.jpg
This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00021841.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that plea agreements made by any U.S. Attorney are binding on the entire U.S. government across all federal districts. It cites several court cases establishing this principle and the related rule that any ambiguities in such agreements must be interpreted against the government. The document concludes by stating that a case named Annabi contradicts this established legal precedent.
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024. It analyzes the legal precedent of *Annabi* (771 F.2d 671), focusing on whether a plea agreement made with the US Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) prevents prosecution by the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text highlights the Second Circuit's ruling that despite being counterintuitive, an agreement to dismiss counts by one district's prosecutor did not bind the United States from prosecuting in another district. This legal argument is likely being cited in the broader context of the Epstein case to discuss the validity and scope of Non-Prosecution Agreements across different federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00021832.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, discussing the legal interpretation of Jeffrey Epstein's September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It outlines the background of the NPA, noting that in exchange for a guilty plea to state charges and an 18-month sentence, the USAO-SDFL agreed not to prosecute Epstein or his potential co-conspirators (referencing four specific but unnamed individuals) for federal offenses committed between 2001 and 2007. The central legal issue presented is whether the Second Circuit's precedent in *Annabi*, which favors the government in ambiguous plea agreements, should be overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00021831.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the legal precedent set in 'Annabi' should be overruled or limited because it creates unfairness in plea negotiations. The text specifically argues that a plea agreement negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit (likely referencing the Jeffrey Epstein 2008 Florida non-prosecution agreement) should bind the 'United States' globally, preventing prosecution in other districts for the same conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021826.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal brief filed in Case 22-1426 on November 1, 2024. The central issue outlined is whether an 'en banc review' is necessary to reconsider 'Annabi's canon of construction' as it applies to plea agreements. The document structures the legal argument, including sections on background, a prior panel decision, and the main argument for review.
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion (likely the appeal decision in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' of an indictment, ruling that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' and a subsequent jury note did not improperly amend the charges against the defendant. The appellate court affirms the District Court's handling of jury instructions regarding the 'core of criminality' and 'Count Four' of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021780.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Document 94) for Case 22-1426, dated February 6, 2024. It is a blank administrative form requiring counsel to identify themselves and their representation status (Appellant, Appellee, or Intervenor). The page also includes a 'Notice to the Bar' detailing procedures for obtaining recordings of oral arguments, hiring private court reporters, and requesting interpreter services. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, indicating it was released by the Department of Justice Office of Government Information Services.
DOJ-OGR-00021770.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction should be overturned due to 'Juror 50's' bias. The text contends that Juror 50 failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse during voir dire, which later caused him to improperly identify with prosecution witnesses and influence other jurors based on his personal trauma rather than the evidence alone.
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-00021752.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, filed 07/27/2023) arguing legal precedents for 'third-party beneficiary' standing in non-prosecution and plea agreements. It cites multiple cases (*Stolt-Nielsen*, *Florida West Int'l Airways*, *El-Sadig*, *CFW Const. Co.*) to establish that individuals not explicitly named or communicated with can still be immune from prosecution if they are intended beneficiaries of an agreement between the government and another party. This legal argument is central to the defense's claims regarding the 2007 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
This document is a legal brief from a court case, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her sentence was erroneous due to a miscalculation and an unsupported four-point enhancement. The brief also contends that Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement that should have barred the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and requests that her conviction be reversed or the case be remanded.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00021723.jpg
This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00021649.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of the filing, which includes the government's case detailing the alleged sexual abuse of six individuals (Jane, Kate, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Carolyn, and Melissa) and a legal argument regarding whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement bars the prosecution of Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021524.jpg
This document is a placeholder page within a court filing, marked '[Page Intentionally Left Blank]'. It contains case headers for Case 22-1426 (filed 06/29/2023) and Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (filed 04/16/21), along with the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021524.
DOJ-OGR-00021492.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, states that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) received information from or about 13 victims. This information pertained to their contacts with the FBI and USAO, and notifications they received about the federal investigation, Epstein's state plea, and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) before it was signed.
DOJ-OGR-00021477.jpg
This legal document details communications surrounding the federal investigation of Epstein, focusing on the information provided to victims and their attorney, Bradley Edwards. Investigator Villafaña told victims and Edwards that the investigation was active and ongoing, while officials like Sloman and Acosta were concerned that disclosing the terms of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), including a potential $150,000 payment, would compromise the victims' credibility as witnesses in a potential trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021455.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal filing, specifically an exhibit (SA-279) filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330) and later in an appellate case (22-1426). The text outlines specific Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (FRPC), focusing on candor in dealing with others and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, likely used to argue that attorneys involved in the underlying case (potentially the Epstein plea deal) violated ethical standards regarding honesty and misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00021454.jpg
This document is page 252 of a larger legal filing (Exhibit SA-278), originating from the DOJ (DOJ-OGR-00021454) and filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines Department of Justice policies regarding 'Consultation With a Government Attorney,' specifically detailing the rights of victims to confer with prosecutors about major case decisions like plea agreements and dismissals, while explicitly stating that this does not create an attorney-client relationship. It lists factors responsible officials must consider when deciding whether to notify victims of plea negotiations, such as public safety and the number of victims.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity