5th Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00015110.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330, argues against the unsealing of materials related to the convicted individual, Maxwell. It outlines the victims' concerns, citing Maxwell's recent transfer to a lower-security prison, her access to a public platform through individuals like Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the government's failure to consult victims, and a growing fear of clemency. The filing asserts that these developments are causing re-traumatization for the survivors and disregard their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 15, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It presents defense arguments supporting the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Mr. Hamilton regarding statements made by 'Kate,' arguing that this evidence proves bias and is not a collateral matter. The text cites various legal precedents to refute the government's objections.
DOJ-OGR-00001735.jpg
The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000316.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 9, 2019, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein does not prevent the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against him in other districts. It cites legal precedent and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to assert that the original agreement made by the USAO-SDFL was not binding on other jurisdictions like the Southern District of New York or the District of New Jersey. The document also addresses the rights of petitioners (victims) under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), stating they have not been denied the ability to confer with the government about potential charges against Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021113.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between the crimes of producing and possessing child pornography. It analyzes the case of U.S. v. Coutentos, where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a possession conviction, even though it stemmed from the defendant's own production involving the abuse of his granddaughters. The court reasoned that the offense of possession, when considered abstractly, does not inherently involve the sexual abuse of a child within the specific meaning of statute § 3283.
DOJ-OGR-00019612.jpg
This document appears to be page 5 (labeled Roman numeral iv) of a legal brief or filing related to Case 20-3061, filed on October 2, 2020. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main document, including United States v. Caparros and United States v. Kerik. The footer indicates it is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ-OGR) release.
DOJ-OGR-00019552.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against a criminal defendant's request to use discovery materials in a civil case. The Government contends there is no precedent for such use and defends the secrecy of grand jury investigations and subpoenas against the defendant's accusations of impropriety. It cites several cases to support maintaining protective orders and separating criminal and civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00010434.jpg
This document is page 17 of a defense sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the application of sentencing guideline § 4B1.5 ('Repeat and Dangerous' sex offenders), asserting that Maxwell has not committed crimes in nearly 20 years, is not attracted to minors, and acted only as a facilitator for Epstein's impulses rather than having them herself. The text contrasts her behavior with case law examples of violent repeat offenders and highlights her subsequent crime-free life involved with partners who had children.
DOJ-OGR-00010353.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The court analyzes and rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) argument that Juror 50 was biased due to dishonest answers on a jury questionnaire. The court distinguishes this case from precedents involving deliberate deception, crediting Juror 50's explanation that his nondisclosure was an 'inadvertent mistake' resulting from personal distractions and 'skimming' the form.
DOJ-OGR-00002948.jpg
This document is page xiii from a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities from Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited within the larger document, providing the case name, legal citation, and the page numbers where each case is referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding 'grooming' and the psychological relationship between sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, citing numerous appellate court precedents (9th, 8th, 10th, 5th, and 2nd Circuits) to support the validity/relevance of such testimony. The filing notes that the defendant is attempting to rely on a single contrary case from the District of Maine.
DOJ-OGR-00005603.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. The text presents a legal argument citing precedents (Katz, Campagnuolo, Wicker) regarding discovery violations, willful misconduct, and the suppression of evidence as a sanction. The filing argues that the government failed to comply with a disclosure order issued months prior and criticizes the government's bad faith in seeking reconsideration rather than compliance.
DOJ-OGR-00005581.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against the defense's interpretation of Brady material. The author contends that the cases cited by the defense (such as Kyles, Bowen, and Lindsey) concern the withholding of directly exculpatory evidence and do not support the defense's attempt to introduce irrelevant information to attack the general 'thoroughness' of the investigation. The document uses precedent from Watson v. Greene to argue that these cases offer no guidance on what evidence must be admitted at trial for cross-examination purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00005495.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 382) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It presents a legal argument citing case law (Kyles v. Whitley, Bowen v. Maynard) to support the admissibility of evidence regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues these elements are necessary to challenge the thoroughness and good faith of the government's investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00002710.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN on February 4, 2021. The motion requests the court to order the government to disclose favorable evidence and, more significantly, to hold a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of statements from alleged co-conspirators, particularly the deceased Jeffrey Epstein. The defense argues that admitting such testimonial statements without the possibility of cross-examination would be highly prejudicial and cites legal precedents like the 'Geaney rule' to support the need for a prior hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00005181.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 12, 2021, is part of a case against a defendant named Maxwell. The author argues that the United States government is misapplying the statute of limitations (18 USC § 3283) in Maxwell's case, drawing a parallel to a previous case, United States v. Diehl. The document notes that Diehl has since filed a 'fraud on the court' motion against the government for similar alleged misconduct.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity