DOJ-OGR
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Rick Ricarey
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00005817.jpg
This is page 34 of a legal filing (Document 397) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The Government argues against the defendant's motion to exclude certain evidence under Rule 404(b), asserting they provided sufficient notice and Jencks Act materials. The text cites Second Circuit case law to define relevant evidence and justify the admission of uncharged crimes if they are inextricably intertwined with the charged offense.
DOJ-OGR-00005743.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 6 of 8 from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for challenging the admissibility of identification testimony, citing several precedents like Raheem v. Kelly and Simmons v. United States. The text explains the two-part inquiry courts must use to determine if a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification is still independently reliable based on factors established in Neil v. Biggers.
DOJ-OGR-00005727.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 391) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The filing outlines arguments against the admissibility of evidence from "The Palm Beach Investigation" due to lack of authenticity. It also argues that the absence of a "Detective Recarey" infringes upon "Ms. Maxwell's" constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00005708.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, presents an argument against introducing evidence of alleged false statements (perjury counts) in Ms. Maxwell's trial. The filing contends that such evidence would substantially prejudice the jury by introducing unrelated allegations, risk the disqualification of her counsel, and create a distracting side-show, thereby jeopardizing her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The arguments heavily rely on the Court's reasoning from a prior severance ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00002845.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details the grooming and abuse methods used by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Maxwell normalized sexual abuse by discussing sexual topics and being present during sexual acts to put victims at ease. The document also outlines how Maxwell encouraged victims to perform sexualized massages on Epstein and how financial incentives (travel/education) were used to create dependency.
DOJ-OGR-00002836.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against a defendant named Schulte's challenge to the jury selection process. The argument asserts that Schulte fails to prove 'systematic exclusion' because the alleged underrepresentation of minority jurors was due to external factors, not the jury selection system itself, citing multiple legal precedents. Schulte's specific claim that the Government sought an indictment in White Plains to avoid the more diverse jury pool of Manhattan is presented as the core of his foreclosed allegation.
DOJ-OGR-00002835.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on August 24, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text analyzes a Sixth Amendment challenge regarding jury underrepresentation, specifically examining the 'absolute disparity method' for African American and Hispanic American representation in the White Plains master jury wheel. The Court concludes that the statistical disparities (1.25% and 1.15%) are within tolerated legal limits based on Second Circuit precedents and that Schulte has failed to meet the necessary burden for his claim.
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text details the court's analysis of Schulte's 'fair cross-section challenge' regarding the exclusion of African American and Hispanic American jurors under the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA) and the Sixth Amendment. While the court acknowledges these demographics are 'distinctive groups,' it rules that Schulte failed to meet the second and third elements of the Duren test, resulting in the rejection of his challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00033000.jpg
This document is page 12 of a deposition transcript involving attorneys Mr. Tein and Mr. Leopold. Mr. Tein questions a witness (whose name is redacted) about whether they are aware that a lawyer named Jeffrey Herman filed a lawsuit on their behalf. Mr. Leopold objects based on attorney-client privilege, specifically referencing conversations between himself and the witness, as well as an 'attorney from Miami'.
DOJ-OGR-00032999.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript involving attorneys Leopold, Goldberger, and Tein, dated July 26, 2017 (based on the footer stamp). The text captures a contentious exchange where Mr. Leopold defends his objections regarding 'improper foundation,' while Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Tein accuse him of wasting time and obstructing the process. Mr. Tein specifically reprimands Leopold for failing to appear earlier in the morning after a separate hearing was cancelled, allegedly breaking a prior agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00032984.jpg
This document is a handwritten note containing a list of seemingly unrelated items, including references to rooms in a house ('living room', 'Pink Room'), maintenance notes ('Roll down by bathroom shutter', 'temp. control'), and mentions of individuals. Notably, it references 'Abigail Ohio house' and 'Eva's little girl on the boat'. The page is dated 07/26/17 and includes a document control number from a public records request.
DOJ-OGR-00032979.jpg
This document consists of two handwritten notes from April 11, 2005, used for scheduling. The first note, initialed 'JPA', states that Julie will arrive at 1:30 because she was delayed. The second note indicates a 3:00 meeting for the author ('me') with someone named 'Down', which is likely a misspelling of 'Dawn'.
DOJ-OGR-00032977.jpg
This document is a handwritten note associated with Jeffrey E. Epstein, containing various names, appointments, and reminders. It lists several individuals such as Glen, Wilda, and Jim H., and notes specific times for activities like "11 Glen" and "12:30 Chicken". The note also mentions "Joanna works sunday at 4pm", indicating a scheduled work arrangement.
DOJ-OGR-00032975.jpg
This document is a handwritten note containing the name 'Dennis', a phone number (561-827-6353), and the company 'OMNIPOINT communications'. The page is part of a larger file associated with Jeffrey E. Epstein, as indicated by his typed name and a Department of Justice document control number in the footer. The note suggests a connection between Epstein and an individual named Dennis associated with Omnipoint in the Palm Beach area.
DOJ-OGR-00032974.jpg
This document is a brief handwritten note scheduling an event for "Britney" and "Arau Zala" at 10:30 on a Friday. The note is attached to another document that has the typed name "Jeffrey E. F." on it. A Bates number in the footer, "DOJ-OGR-00032974", indicates this is part of a set of documents from the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00032971.jpg
This document contains handwritten notes dated April 5, 2005, detailing attempts to contact individuals named 'Julie' and 'T.' to confirm appointments. A message was left for Julie regarding a 1:00 pm meeting, while the call to T. for a 5:30 pm meeting went directly to voicemail. A separate note also questions a potential 6:00 pm meeting with Julie.
DOJ-OGR-00032967.jpg
The document consists of two items on a single page from discovery files. The top item is a phone message slip dated September 1, 2005, for Jeffrey from 'Jean-Luc' of Omni-Point Communications Inc., urging an important callback at 646-286-7000. The bottom item is a handwritten note scheduling 'Haley' and 'Saige' for a Saturday appointment at 10:30.
DOJ-OGR-00032959.jpg
This document is a promotional mailer from The Sharper Image, addressed to Andrew Stewart at 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, FL, with a requested delivery date of September 19, 2005. The mailer lists several of the company's store locations in South Florida. A handwritten label indicates the item was collected from the trash as evidence by a detective on September 30, 2005.
DOJ-OGR-00032931.jpg
This document is a mostly blank page from a Department of Justice public records release. It contains only footer information, including a processing date of 07/26/17, a handwritten date of 10-3-05, and the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00032931.
DOJ-OGR-00032834.jpg
This document is a printout of page 2 of a Myspace.com picture comment section from 2005. It displays four comments from different users (Leah Jean, Dorothy Mantooth, sam, and one anonymous user) directed at the profile owner. The comments, dated between February and April 2005, range from affectionate messages and compliments to inside jokes and crude humor, reflecting typical social interactions on the platform during that era. Footer information indicates this page was part of a public records request (No. 17-295) and has a DOJ-OGR control number.
DOJ-OGR-00032826.jpg
This document is a printout of a MySpace photo gallery page for a user named "ashley fucking davis," dated November 14, 2005. The page displays several redacted photos with captions that mention individuals named Garth and Leah, and a reference to the user's "wife." The document includes a footer with a Public Records Request number and a DOJ-OGR identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00032825.jpg
A printout of a MySpace comments page from February 2005, produced as part of a DOJ Public Records Request (17-295). The document displays comments left for a user (FriendID 172831) by users '5|<y1£R' (likely Skyler) and 'the tragic tale of you and me,' appearing to show personal teenage social interactions. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00032825.
DOJ-OGR-00032823.jpg
This document is a printed page from a MySpace profile (FriendID 172831), containing comments from four different users between February 6 and February 11, 2005. One comment explicitly identifies the profile owner as 'ash' (likely referring to a victim or associate in the investigation) and references a meeting at a Hollister store. The document originates from a Department of Justice Public Records Request (17-295) and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00032823.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity