Rivera
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
U.S.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
4
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Comparative inmates |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge Engelmayer
|
Judicial |
2
|
2 | |
|
organization
MCC
|
Detainee at facility |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Comparative defendants |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendants in separate but related cases discussions regarding prison access |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Engelmayer
|
Defendant judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
ANTHONY
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Comparison disparity |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Comparison of detention |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Comparison |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Engelmayer
|
Defendant and presiding judge |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-18 | N/A | Video call between counsel and Rivera (4 hours). | Virtual/MCC | View |
| 2020-12-14 | N/A | Rivera told he is 'enemy #1' by staff. | MCC Law Library | View |
| 2020-12-11 | N/A | Justin Rivera transferred to a unit; denied laptop access. | MCC | View |
| 2020-12-08 | N/A | Justin Rivera received his laptop while in SHU. | MCC SHU | View |
| 2020-04-29 | N/A | Order in United States v. Rivera | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-02-16 | N/A | Justin Rivera's trial expected to start. | N/A | View |
| 2020-01-01 | N/A | Justin Rivera had new counsel appointed. | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justin Rivera detained at MCC. | MCC | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justin Rivera charged with sex trafficking conspiracy. | N/A | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Justin Rivera's trial originally scheduled. | N/A | View |
| 1991-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1991-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case citation for Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991). | N/A | View |
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case decision | Decision in the case of U.S. v. Rivera. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 1988-01-01 | Court case | U.S. v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1988) | 2d Cir. | View |
EFTA00034860.pdf
This document is a Daily Activity Report from the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York dated July 9, 2019, covering activities from the previous day, July 8, 2019. It notes a significant staff shortage resulting in the vacation of correctional assignment '10-South #2' during both day and evening shifts, and reports that the fire suppression system was inoperative. Crucially, it records that inmate Jeffrey Epstein (#76318-054) was placed on 'Psych Obs' (Psychological Observation) during the Evening Watch shift.
EFTA00031833.pdf
This document is an email header dated December 31, 2020, forwarded to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The subject concerns disparities in legal counsel and discovery access between Ghislaine Maxwell and Justin Rivera. The document contains technical metadata including a Message-ID and an embedded .msg filename.
EFTA00031576.pdf
Internal US Attorney's Office email chain dated December 21, 2020, discussing a legal challenge in the case U.S. v. Rivera. Judge Engelmayer demanded an explanation from the Bureau of Prisons regarding why Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) received significantly better accommodations (91 hours/week laptop access vs. 21 hours) than defendant Justin Rivera (at MCC). The email outlines the disparities and prepares for a required declaration due by December 31.
EFTA00030063.pdf
This document is an email chain from late December 2020 discussing disparities in counsel and discovery access for Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at MDC) and Justin Rivera (detained at MCC). Judge Engelmayer requested a declaration from the Bureau of Prisons to explain why Maxwell's accommodations were 'strikingly different and far superior' to Rivera's, citing differences in case complexity, housing situations, and inmate populations at the respective facilities. The emails detail the efforts to draft this declaration and address specific questions and concerns regarding the document's content and timeline.
EFTA00030058.pdf
This document is an email thread among US Attorney's Office (SDNY) staff regarding a court order from Judge Engelmayer in the case of United States v. Justin Rivera. The Judge required the BOP to explain why Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at MDC) received significantly better access to legal counsel and laptops than Rivera (detained at MCC), specifically citing 'terrible optics' and potential disparity based on class/race. The emails detail the drafting of a declaration to explain that the differences are due to Maxwell's protective custody status and the sheer volume of discovery in her case, compared to Rivera's placement in the general population.
EFTA00017757.pdf
This document contains a roster of inmates and their corresponding registration numbers for various housing tiers (L, G, H, J, K, M). Jeffrey Epstein (Inmate 76318-054) is listed as being housed in L-Tier. The document serves as a snapshot of inmate housing assignments, likely within the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York.
EFTA00016118.pdf
Attorney Anthony Cecutti writes to Judge Engelmayer regarding his client, Justin Rivera, detailing ongoing issues with accessing discovery materials (via laptop) and legal counsel (via video calls) at the MCC. The letter alleges harassment by MCC staff, who referred to Rivera as 'enemy #1', and criticizes the facility's rigid scheduling. The document concludes by contrasting Rivera's harsh treatment with the extensive accommodations provided to Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC (access to computers, showers, TV, and 13 hours of discovery review daily), arguing that the disparity is based on race, gender, and class.
EFTA00015972.pdf
This document is an internal email chain among SDNY prosecutors dated December 21, 2020. It discusses a legal issue in the case *United States v. Rivera et al.*, where Judge Engelmayer expressed frustration that defendant Justin Rivera (at MCC) received significantly less access to discovery and legal counsel compared to Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC). The emails detail the stark difference in hours allowed (91 hours/week for Maxwell vs 21 hours/week for Rivera) and mention the seizure of 60 devices and an entire FBI file from a prior Florida investigation in the Maxwell case.
EFTA00015902.pdf
This document is an email chain between US Attorneys regarding a judicial inquiry into why Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) received significantly better legal access than Justin Rivera (at MCC). Judge Engelmayer called the disparity 'terrible' optics. The BOP's explanation was that Maxwell's protective custody status (isolation) allowed her exclusive use of equipment, whereas Rivera was in the general population sharing limited resources with ~80 other inmates. The emails track the drafting of a declaration to explain this to the court by the December 31, 2020 deadline.
EFTA00013342.pdf
This document is an email chain within the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) discussing a legal challenge in the case United States v. Rivera. The judge and defense counsel questioned why Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) received significantly greater access to laptops (13 hours/day vs 3) and video counsel visits than Justin Rivera (at MCC). The correspondence outlines the Bureau of Prisons' justification, attributing the disparity to Maxwell's protective custody status and massive discovery volume versus Rivera's general population housing.
EFTA00013337.pdf
This document is an internal email chain within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) from December 2020. It discusses a legal issue raised by Judge Engelmayer in the case of *United States v. Rivera*, where the judge criticized the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for providing significantly better access to counsel and electronic discovery to Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) compared to Justin Rivera (at MCC). The emails detail the drafting of a declaration to explain that Maxwell's privileges (such as 13 hours/day of laptop access) are due to her unique protective custody status and the massive volume of discovery in her case, whereas Rivera is in the general population with shared resources.
EFTA00013329.pdf
This document is an internal email chain within the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding a legal issue raised by Judge Engelmayer in the case *United States v. Rivera*. The Judge criticized the disparity between the extensive discovery and counsel access provided to Ghislaine Maxwell at MDC Brooklyn (91 hours/week laptop access) versus the limited access provided to Justin Rivera at MCC New York (21 hours/week). The emails discuss drafting a declaration to explain that these differences are due to Maxwell's unique protective custody status and facility capabilities, rather than preferential treatment based on class or race.
DOJ-OGR-00021085.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It contains legal arguments attempting to distance the current case from the precedent set in *U.S. v. Annabi*, arguing that *Annabi* is an outlier regarding whether a plea agreement in one district binds another. The text consists primarily of extensive footnotes citing various Second Circuit decisions (*Prisco*, *Ashraf*, *Salameh*, etc.) that limited plea agreements to specific US Attorney's Offices, supporting the government's position against the Appellant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell).
DOJ-OGR-00021058.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, dating from 1926 to 2022, which are cited within the main document. Each citation includes the case name, legal reporter information, and the page numbers where the case is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00002286.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'joinder' (combining) and 'severance' (separating) of criminal charges, citing various precedents to argue that offenses separated by time, location, or circumstance should not be tried together. It specifically addresses the standards for joining perjury or false statement counts with substantive crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments and case citations regarding the severance of charges and 'joinder,' specifically arguing that perjury counts should not be joined with substantive crimes if they are not sufficiently connected physically, temporally, or transactionally. The document cites precedents such as *United States v. Rivera*, *Randazzo*, and *Potamitis* to support the argument that unrelated offenses should be tried separately.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002281(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities page (Page 3 of 19) from a court filing dated January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists twenty-one legal precedents (cases) cited in the brief, primarily from the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, covering dates from 1964 to 2011. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002281.
DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg
This is page 8 of a court order filed on June 9, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (USA v. Noel and Thomas). The court denies the defendant's (Thomas) motion to compel the government to produce evidence held by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), ruling that the BOP is not part of the prosecution team for Brady disclosure purposes. The document also outlines Thomas's argument that the conduct he is charged with was rampant within the BOP and acquiesced to by leadership.
DOJ-OGR-00021842.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that critiques the reasoning of a prior court decision, 'Annabi'. The author argues that 'Annabi' departed from the established legal doctrine that a plea agreement with a specific U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) only binds that office, not the entire U.S. government, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The text cites numerous other cases in its footnotes to support this traditional, more limited interpretation of such agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00003133.jpg
This legal document is a court's discussion regarding a defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of an indictment, arguing they are multiplicitous (i.e., charge the same crime multiple times). The Court decides that the motion is premature and defers its ruling until after the trial is complete. The Court reasons that a full factual record is needed for the analysis and the issue could become moot depending on the jury's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00003110.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a prosecution filing arguing against a motion by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, to sever perjury charges from other substantive counts (Mann Act). The prosecution contends that trying the counts together is judicially efficient, not unduly prejudicial, and that the defendant's claims of prejudice are generalized and can be managed with jury instructions. The filing also dismisses the defendant's concern that her attorneys from a prior civil suit might be called to testify, arguing it does not meet the threshold for disqualification.
DOJ-OGR-00003108.jpg
This legal document is a portion of the prosecution's (the Government's) argument against a defendant's motion to sever perjury counts from other charges. The Government contends that a full re-litigation of a prior defamation action is not necessary and that any potential for 'spillover prejudice' can be managed through stipulations, using a pseudonym for a witness (Giuffre), and providing limiting instructions to the jury. The document cites several legal precedents to support the argument that juries are presumed to follow such instructions.
Legal advice regarding Clinton deposition
Advice that Clinton should settle the case early to avoid broad deposition questions about his sex life.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity