DOJ-OGR
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Rick Ricarey
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00031263.jpg
This document is a page from a public records request, identified as DOJ-OGR-00031263, dated July 26, 2017. It contains a handwritten note indicating it is a 'Flight Log Summary by Rick Ricarey,' suggesting Rick Ricarey prepared the summary for the public records request.
DOJ-OGR-00031230.jpg
This document is a divider page from a larger set of records, dated July 26, 2017. It is part of a response to a public records request (No. 17-295) and is Bates-stamped 'DOJ-OGR-00031230'. A handwritten note, 'New Mexico Contributions', indicates the subject matter of the documents that likely follow this page.
DOJ-OGR-00031200.jpg
This document is a divider page from a larger set of records, likely produced in response to a public records request (No. 17-295) to the Department of Justice. A handwritten note, "New Mexico Contributions," indicates the subject matter of the subsequent documents. The page is dated 07/26/17 and is marked as page 27 of 135.
DOJ-OGR-00031198.jpg
This document is an aircraft registration record from Landings.com, with data last updated on September 19, 2005. It provides details for aircraft N909JE, a 1974 Gulfstream Aerospace G1159B, which is registered to Hyperion Air Inc., a corporation located in Wilmington, Delaware, as of March 15, 1994.
DOJ-OGR-00022384.jpg
This is a heavily redacted document, identified by the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00022384. An annotation at the top states that the content was redacted to protect potential victim information, rendering the original purpose and content of the page indeterminable.
DOJ-OGR-00022361.jpg
This document represents page 76 of a contact list or address book, likely belonging to Jeffrey Epstein. It lists names alphabetically (C-E), including notable figures such as Alan Dershowitz, Jimmy Cayne, and Silas Chou, alongside Jeffrey Epstein himself. All contact details (phone numbers/addresses) have been redacted with black blocks, leaving only the names visible.
DOJ-OGR-00019869.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, argues for the detention of a 58-year-old defendant, asserting they are a significant flight risk. The argument is based on the severity of the alleged crimes involving multiple minors, a potential 35-year prison sentence, and the strength of the evidence, which includes victim testimony corroborated by flight records, diaries, and business records. The document also confirms that the charges are timely under the amended statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
This legal document argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk, citing Supreme Court precedent on bail. It references the case of United States v. Bodmer, where a defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's speculative arguments. The document concludes that Ms. Maxwell should receive similar treatment to other defendants granted bond.
DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, arguing against the Government's position that Ms. Maxwell is a flight risk solely based on statutory maximum penalties. The defense cites Second Circuit precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to establish that a potential long sentence is insufficient grounds for detention without further evidence of flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00019838.jpg
This document appears to be page 10 of a legal brief filed on April 1, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should be granted bail. The text criticizes the District Court for relying on the Government's 'conclusory allegations' regarding the strength of the case to justify detention. The defense argues the case is old, based on anonymous hearsay that has not been confronted, and that prosecutors have refused to disclose the accusers' names or specific allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00019812.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (likely an appellate record for Case 21-58) detailing events in the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case between December 18 and December 28, 2020. It records the filing of legal arguments regarding Maxwell's renewed bail motion, the Judge's orders approving specific redactions to protect third-party privacy, and ultimately the Court's order on December 28 denying the defendant's motion for release on bail. The document lists Maurene Comey for the prosecution and Christian Everdell for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00019780.jpg
This is a court docket log from the Ghislaine Maxwell case covering July 27-30, 2020. It details the dispute and subsequent ruling on a Protective Order where Maxwell sought to publicly reference alleged victims who had previously spoken to the media about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison Nathan ruled in favor of the Government, adopting their proposed protective order to restrict the public identification of victims and witnesses to protect their privacy and safety.
DOJ-OGR-00019774.jpg
This legal document, dated March 24, 2021, is page 4 of a filing in Case 21-58. It lists numerous pending felony counts against an unspecified defendant, including conspiracy, coercion, and transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity, as well as perjury before a grand jury or court.
DOJ-OGR-00019763.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court docket sheet (Case 21-58) outlining proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell between late December 2020 and January 2021. Key events include Judge Alison Nathan denying Maxwell's renewed motion for bail on the grounds that she remains a flight risk, the listing of specific federal charges against her (sex trafficking and perjury), and the subsequent filing of a Notice of Appeal by the defense. The document also records procedural motions regarding extensions of time and the sealing of specific documents.
DOJ-OGR-00019754.jpg
This document is a court docket page from the Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58) criminal proceedings, specifically covering July 27-30, 2020. It details the legal arguments and subsequent court order regarding a 'Protective Order' governing confidential materials. Judge Alison Nathan ruled against Maxwell's request to publicly reference alleged victims who had previously spoken publicly, citing a need to protect witness privacy and the integrity of the criminal investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019739.jpg
This document is an 'Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance' filed on January 26, 2021, for case 21-58 (USA v. Maxwell). Attorney Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser, LLP formally enters his appearance as lead counsel for the Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The document confirms contact information and notes a related previous case, USA v. Maxwell 20-3061.
DOJ-OGR-00019735.jpg
This document is a court record dated January 12, 2021, detailing the transmission of the appeal record and certified indexed electronic files concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's Notice of Appeal (document 113) to the U.S. Court of Appeals. It is part of Case 21-58 and is page 20 of 20, bearing the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00019735.
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, likely an appellate brief filed by Ms. Maxwell's defense. It argues that Judge Preska (civil case) is evaluating unsealing documents without knowing critical facts obscured by a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. The defense contends that unless the order is modified to allow sharing information under seal, Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury will be prejudiced by the release of deposition materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019659.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that releasing deposition material prematurely would compromise her ability to make a 'Martindell argument' and discusses her intent to move Judge Preska to stay unsealing pending her criminal case. The text highlights a conflict where Maxwell claims she cannot fairly argue her case because Judge Preska and the appellate panel are unaware of redacted facts regarding government proceedings and subpoenas.
DOJ-OGR-00019653.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, arguing against the immediate unsealing of Ghislaine Maxwell's April 2016 deposition. The text asserts that Judge Preska's unsealing order must be reviewed immediately because a post-trial appeal would be too late to prevent public release, which cannot be undone ('re-sealed').
DOJ-OGR-00019651.jpg
This document is page 2 (labeled Page 5 of 23 in header) of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's stance on Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights and civil protective order, specifically criticizing the government for claiming Maxwell failed to articulate why Judge Preska needs certain information (which is redacted). The document also begins a section on 'Jurisdiction,' outlining the three conditions for interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine, citing 'Will v. Hallock'.
DOJ-OGR-00019640.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order is moot. The text details that Judge Nathan has already authorized Maxwell to inform Judge Preska (under seal) about specific facts learned during criminal discovery regarding government subpoenas, which Maxwell claims is necessary to argue for a stay on unsealing deposition materials. It also notes that Maxwell's criminal charges include allegations of perjury in civil cases.
DOJ-OGR-00017248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, containing a judge's instructions to a jury. The judge explains the legal standards for considering the acts of a coconspirator as evidence against the defendant and defines the concept of "conscious avoidance," where a person can be found to have acted knowingly if they deliberately ignored obvious facts.
DOJ-OGR-00013921.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Espinosa. The testimony focuses on frequent phone calls received at the office from 'Jane's mother,' who was persistently asking to speak with Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning is interrupted by an objection from Ms. Pomerantz regarding hearsay, prompting the judge to request a proffer.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity