Morrison
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alan Trounson
|
Interviewer interviewee |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Alan Trounson
|
Interviewee interviewer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pilot Programs
|
Trainee student |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-19 | N/A | Impeachment hearings testimony | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2016-12-23 | Court case | Court case United States v. Morrison. | W.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2016-12-23 | Legal case | United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) | Western District of New York | View |
| 2001-03-14 | N/A | Flight training for Lancy Morrison on Taifeng, STL. Clemps Geoms Turnos. | PBI to FLL | View |
| 2001-03-14 | N/A | Flight training for Lancy Morrison on Clefiponoydescondal Turns SIL. | FLL to PBI | View |
EFTA00032804.pdf
A Bloomberg newsletter dated November 19, 2019, summarizing daily financial and political news. Key topics include retail earnings reports, the Trump impeachment hearings involving Lt. Col. Vindman, and US-China trade negotiations. Significantly, the newsletter reports that two guards at a Manhattan jail were charged with falsifying documents and conspiracy for failing to check on Jeffrey Epstein the night of his death, instead appearing to have been asleep.
DOJ-OGR-00022252.tif
This document is a flight log detailing flights and training activities in 2001, primarily involving various aircraft and routes. It records flight remarks, procedures, maneuvers, and endorsements associated with individuals undergoing pilot training, including Jonathan Mand, Kristy Rodgers, Lancy Morrison, and others listed as passengers or trainees. The log also includes pilot's signature by David Rodgers and financial totals.
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition, likely in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The author argues that the defendant has not provided cases where such waivers are enforceable and cites several past court decisions (e.g., Epstein, Morrison, Stroh) where courts have deemed such waivers unenforceable, invalid until a formal request is made, or an 'empty gesture'. The document contrasts these with cases cited by the defense (e.g., Cirillo, Salvagno) where waivers were considered but were not the central factor in the court's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal arguments concerning the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites various legal precedents, noting that while some defendants have offered such waivers, courts have often not ruled on their enforceability or have deemed them unenforceable, as in the Epstein case where it was called an "empty gesture." The document highlights the significant legal uncertainty surrounding whether a foreign country would enforce such a waiver, making it a contentious point in the defendant's case against extradition to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002244(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contrasts different legal precedents, citing cases where such waivers were considered unenforceable or an 'empty gesture' (e.g., United States v. Epstein) against others where they were conditions of release, though their enforceability was not explicitly determined. The document highlights the legal ambiguity surrounding whether a foreign country, like France, would honor such a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
DOJ-OGR-00005901.jpg
This document is a page from an academic paper (authored by S. Craven et al.) filed as an exhibit (Document 397-1) in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It details psychological and criminological models of sexual offending and grooming, specifically discussing 'Hall and Hirschman’s Quadripartite Model,' 'Finkelhor’s Pre-condition Model,' and 'Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model.' The text analyzes the mechanics of offender motivation, vulnerability factors, and the creation of opportunities to offend.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029542.jpg
This document is page 4 of a printed LA Times interview between journalist Patt Morrison and scientist Alan Trounson, dated May 29, 2013. In the excerpt, Trounson discusses his personal health (atrial fibrillation) and family medical history (HIV/AIDS, lung disease) as motivations for research, while praising California as a premier location for scientific work. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029542' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a Congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029541.jpg
This document is a printout of page 3 of 4 of an LA Times interview with Alan Trounson, dated May 29, 2013. Trounson discusses stem cell research, public perception, funding returns compared to the Human Genome Project, and conflict of interest issues at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029540.jpg
Page 2 of 4 of an LA Times interview with Alan Trounson (dated May 29, 2013) discussing the state of stem cell research in California. Trounson outlines plans to request $70 million from the CIRM board to establish a network of clinics and compares California's collaborative research environment (funded by Proposition 71's $3 billion) to the competitive environments of Harvard and Australia. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029539.jpg
This document is a printout of a May 29, 2013, Los Angeles Times interview with Alan Trounson, the president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). The article discusses the history of California's $3 billion funding for stem cell research (Proposition 71) and Trounson outlines current progress, including moving projects to clinical trials and banking 'induced pluripotent stem cells' (IPS) for studying complex diseases. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was likely part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012393.jpg
This document is a legal analysis discussing the U.S. President's executive power in relation to enforcing laws believed to be unconstitutional. It summarizes a 1985 Congressional Research Service memorandum and five Supreme Court cases (from 1926-1991) that illustrate historical conflicts between the executive and legislative branches. Despite the user's query identifying it as 'Epstein-related', the text of this specific page contains no information about Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or related matters.
Stem Cell Research and California
Interview regarding Trounson's personal health connections to research and the perception of California's scientific community.
Stem Cell Research Progress
Interview regarding the progress of CIRM and stem cell research in California as the 10-year anniversary of Proposition 71 approaches.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity