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 |
DOJ-OGR-00003077.jpg
This document is page 143 of a legal filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against granting the defendant an evidentiary hearing regarding a 'Franks' analysis and asserts that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to obtain discovery or dismiss perjury counts. The Government contends that a jury should decide whether the defendant committed perjury during two depositions in a prior civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00003075.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, discusses the legal standard for challenging an affidavit based on alleged omissions of fact. It cites numerous precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York, to argue that a motion to suppress evidence should be denied unless the omissions were intentional, deliberate, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The document emphasizes that this is a high standard to meet, as courts recognize that all affidavits will inevitably omit some facts that may seem significant in retrospect.
DOJ-OGR-00002955.jpg
This document is page 21 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The page lists various legal precedents (case law citations) ranging from 'United States v. Rahimi' to 'United States v. Rosa' used to support legal arguments in the main brief. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002955.
DOJ-OGR-00002943.jpg
This document is page 9 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations alphabetically from 'Miller v. Pate' to 'SEC v. TheStreet.com'. Each entry includes the case name, its legal reporter citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00004717.jpg
This legal document, filed on May 25, 2021, is a legal argument concerning the scope of plea agreements across different federal judicial districts. The author argues, based on Second Circuit precedent like Annabi, that a plea agreement from one district does not bind another unless explicitly stated. The document contrasts this with a broader interpretation from the Third Circuit (in United States v. Gebbie), which the defendant in the current case (Maxwell) is urging the court to adopt.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00005247.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 354) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 15, 2021. The text argues that the Court has the authority to set an earlier deadline for the defense to file motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (the rape shield law), citing various precedents to support the Government's request for an earlier briefing schedule. The document references multiple other cases (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to demonstrate that courts frequently set Rule 412 deadlines more than 14 days prior to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00005237.jpg
This document is a letter filed on October 15, 2021, by the U.S. Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government is responding to a court order concerning the deadline for the defendant to file a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which governs the admissibility of evidence regarding a victim's sexual behavior. The document outlines the legal standards and purpose of Rule 412, emphasizing victim privacy protections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023409.jpg
This document is page 49 of a legal brief or court opinion titled 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001,' printed via Westlaw. It discusses the legal necessity of jurisdictional discovery regarding 'Sovereign Defendants' and 'NCB' (National Commercial Bank), which claims to be an instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The text concludes by requesting the reversal of a lower court's dismissal of certain defendants and includes detailed footnotes referencing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the 9/11 Commission Report, and CIA documents concerning Usama Bin Laden and Enaam Arnaout.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023368.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing, marked with Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023368. It lists various legal precedents and case citations, primarily focusing on litigation related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sovereign immunity, and international liability (Alien Tort Statute). While the document is part of a collection likely reviewed by the House Oversight Committee (possibly related to an investigation involving Epstein or similar legal themes of jurisdiction/immunity), this specific page contains no direct mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their associates.
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