E.D.N.Y
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court transcript or motion, dated December 17, 2021. The speaker argues against a defense strategy that challenges the thoroughness of a government investigation, citing multiple legal precedents (e.g., Watson, Gray v. Ercole, United States v. Birbal) to support the principle that the government's choice of investigative techniques is generally irrelevant to the defendant's guilt. The argument distinguishes these cases from another, Bowen v. Maynard, where evidence of an alternative suspect was deemed material.
DOJ-OGR-00000283.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 11, 2019, arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. Defense counsel argues that home confinement with 24-hour private armed guards—paid for by Epstein—is the 'least restrictive' condition to assure his appearance, citing precedents like Bernie Madoff and Marc Dreier. The filing addresses the Judge's potential concerns about wealthy defendants 'buying their way out' of jail, arguing that denying this option based on wealth raises equal protection concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
DOJ-OGR-00021685.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. It contains legal arguments rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that a U.S. Attorney's Office in one district is bound by a plea agreement made in another, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent (San Pedro v. United States) and 28 U.S.C. § 547 regarding the limitation of a U.S. Attorney's authority to their own district. A footnote discusses and dismisses Maxwell's argument regarding an 'inter-circuit exclusionary rule.'
DOJ-OGR-00003049.jpg
This document is page 115 of a legal filing (Document 204) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. It outlines legal arguments regarding the 'good faith exception' to the exclusionary rule, citing precedents like United States v. Leon and United States v. Moore. The text argues that suppression of evidence is not warranted because the Government acted in good faith by obtaining a grand jury subpoena and applying to the court to modify a civil protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00005627.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 386) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a Table of Authorities listing legal precedents, specifically focusing on case law regarding the admissibility of expert testimony (e.g., Daubert, Kumho Tire, Joiner). The document bears a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00005627).
DOJ-OGR-00005417.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 380) from October 29, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). The text is a legal argument citing multiple precedents (Boyle, Rodriguez, Hill, Watts, Carneglia) to support the exclusion of evidence related to the government's charging decisions. The argument asserts that such evidence is hearsay, irrelevant, and potentially confusing to jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00005410.jpg
This document is page 17 of 54 from a court filing (Document 380) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It argues for the sealing of exhibits containing the names or last names of specific minor victims (Minor Victim-1, 3, 4, 6) and Witness-1 to prevent harassment and protect privacy, citing various legal precedents. A footnote also argues that courtroom sketch artists should be precluded from drawing the faces of victims.
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing from April 5, 2021, discusses the legal standard for obtaining documents via a subpoena under Rule 17(c). It heavily references the precedent set in 'United States v. Nixon', emphasizing that a request for documents must be made in good faith, be specific, and not constitute a general 'fishing expedition'. The document argues that courts require a stringent showing that the requested materials are relevant, admissible, and specifically identified, rather than just potentially useful to a case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017707.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 72 of 78 in the production) bearing the name of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein. The text presents a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victim status and rights should apply even to crimes that have not yet been charged, citing Senator Kyl's legislative intent. It criticizes the NACDL's proposal for fact-finding hearings to determine victim status and argues against the Advisory Committee's limitations on victims' rights in proposed rules. The document appears to be part of an evidentiary submission to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to the investigation into the handling of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement and the violation of victims' rights.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity