Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror candidate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cynthia Hopkins
|
Employee |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00008715.jpg
This document is a jury instruction, designated as Instruction No. 4, from a legal case filed on December 19, 2021. The judge directs the jury to base their verdict solely on their own recollection of the evidence, not on the arguments of the lawyers for the Government or the Defendant. It clarifies that statements from counsel, the judge's comments, legal objections, and side-bar conferences are not evidence and should not influence their determination of the facts.
DOJ-OGR-00005846.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defense's claims of prejudice due to the volume of discovery material. The Government asserts that the defense's complaints are exaggerated, that it has clearly identified the evidence it will use at trial, and that suppression of evidence is not the proper remedy. A footnote clarifies that many co-conspirator statements, such as instructions from Epstein, are admissible on grounds other than the co-conspirator exception to hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00020357.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, details the allegedly abusive and overly restrictive detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. It claims she is subjected to constant, invasive surveillance, has been physically abused by guards, had property damaged, and had private information leaked to the press. The filing argues that these conditions are unwarranted and that her monitored communications with family demonstrate strong ties to the U.S., contradicting claims that she is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00011615.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 22, 2022, detailing the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The judge, noting her lack of remorse, imposes a sentence of 240 months (20 years) imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The sentence is broken down by count, with all terms to run concurrently.
DOJ-OGR-00011576.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) containing a statement, likely a closing argument or sentencing memo, regarding the defendant, Maxwell. The text details the defendant's predatory behavior, describing how she manipulated and trafficked young girls for sex to serve a middle-aged man.
DOJ-OGR-00005754.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The author argues that the Court should prohibit any law enforcement witness from giving expert opinion testimony because the officers were not properly disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1)(G), and such testimony would violate Rule 702. The argument extends to witnesses called by either the government or the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019357.jpg
This document is a placeholder sheet indicating that pages 311 through 317 of the production have been withheld due to a Court Sealing Order. It contains a standard administrative stamp noting that there is no duplication fee for this deleted page placeholder.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019206.jpg
An opinion piece by Edward Jay Epstein published in the Wall Street Journal arguing that Edward Snowden's narrative of being a whistleblower is a fabrication. The article details Snowden's theft of NSA documents, his flight to Hong Kong, and claims that his stated motivations and actions were deceptive.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022138.jpg
This document is a scanned excerpt (pages 240-241) from a book, likely by James Patterson, stamped with a House Oversight control number. It discusses the state of affairs in September 2014, noting that FBI investigations into Epstein appeared stalled, while recounting a 2008 legal motion filed by lawyer Bradley Edwards accusing Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz of participating in Epstein's illegal activities. Dershowitz is quoted denying these allegations entirely.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022048.jpg
This document is a scan of pages 240-241 from a book (likely James Patterson's 'Filthy Rich') produced as evidence for House Oversight. Chapter 63, set in September 2014, discusses the stalling FBI investigation into Epstein and recounts a 2008 legal motion filed by Bradley Edwards accusing Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz of participating in Epstein's illegal activities, which Dershowitz denied.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016996.jpg
This document is the first page of a scientific research article titled 'Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books' published in Sciencexpress on December 16, 2010. The paper introduces 'Culturomics' using data from Google Books. It is stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016996', indicating it was part of the House Oversight Committee's investigation, likely due to the involvement of author Martin A. Nowak, the director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, which received significant funding from Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017672.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various case precedents (such as State v. Percy and Brady v. Maryland) to argue that criminal defendants do not have a general constitutional right to discovery, particularly regarding the private mental health records of victims. The text emphasizes that 'mere hope' of finding favorable evidence is insufficient for a subpoena.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017347.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a book manuscript (Chapter 15) written by a high-profile lawyer (likely Alan Dershowitz, given the context of the document dump). The text discusses the intersection of media and law, referencing the O.J. Simpson and Mike Tyson cases as examples of high-publicity trials. The author reflects on the concept of 'celebrity justice,' the impact of televised trials (mentioning Court TV), and defends their record of representing both famous and indigent clients.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017323.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal manuscript or book draft (possibly by Alan Dershowitz given the context of House Oversight documents) discussing the Mike Tyson rape trial. It argues that the prosecution and the accuser, Desiree Washington, suppressed evidence regarding a financial contingency fee agreement and Washington's sexual history. The text details how a Rhode Island lawyer felt ethically compelled to disclose the fee agreement despite the Indiana court ignoring it, and claims three eyewitnesses saw consensual physical affection between Tyson and Washington prior to the alleged assault.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017258.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal memoir or manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, who argued *Tison v. Arizona*) submitted to the House Oversight Committee. It details the narrator's oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November 3, 1986, defending the Tison brothers against the death penalty by arguing they lacked specific intent to kill. The text recounts interactions with Justice White and mentions a challenge from Justice Scalia.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023157.jpg
This document is a single page (xxv) from a printed chronology, appearing to be a proof from Oxford University Press dated 12/9/2014. It outlines major political and military events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between March 2002 and August 2004, including UN resolutions, the invasion of Iraq, and diplomatic summits involving US, Israeli, and Palestinian leadership. The page is stamped with a House Oversight Bates number, indicating it was likely included as background material or evidence in a larger government investigation file.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011943.jpg
A New York appeals court upheld Jeffrey Epstein's classification as a Level 3 sex offender, designating him a high risk to public safety. The court cited clear and convincing evidence of his behavior involving underage girls, despite the limited scope of his previous Florida conviction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015630.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal response in the defamation case *Edwards v. Dershowitz* (CACE 15-000072). The filing argues against Dershowitz's motion for confidentiality, citing previous orders by Judge Marra in a federal CVRA case. The text explicitly mentions allegations of sexual abuse by Dershowitz against Ms. Giuffre and asserts that previous court orders allow for these factual details to be presented if properly supported.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015610.jpg
This is page 12 of a legal filing (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015610) arguing for protective measures regarding the deposition of 'Jane Doe No. 3,' a non-party witness identified as a victim of sexual trafficking orchestrated by Jeffrey Epstein. The filing requests that the Defendant be precluded from asking questions about the victim's sexual history or other trafficking victims, prohibits the use of specific derogatory language ('prostitute,' 'liar,' 'bad mother') previously used by the Defendant in the press, and demands that the Defendant not be physically present in the same room during testimony due to the victim's fear.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015541.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal complaint (Case 1:15-cv-07433) filed on September 21, 2015, by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text outlines allegations that Maxwell sexually abused Giuffre, facilitated Epstein's abuse of her, and subsequently launched a defamation campaign to discredit Giuffre and cover up the crimes. The page concludes with a 'Prayer for Relief' requesting judgment against Maxwell for damages in excess of $75,000.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013481.jpg
This document is a condensed transcript (Pages 1-4) of a videotaped deposition of Bradley J. Edwards, taken on March 23, 2010, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The case involves Jeffrey Epstein as the plaintiff against Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and L.M. Notable attendees included Jeffrey Epstein himself and his legal team, including Alan Dershowitz.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013310.jpg
This document is a page from Brad Edwards' Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment. It lists questions Epstein refused to answer regarding sexual assaults on private planes and the procuring of minors (L.M., E.W., Jane Doe) for prostitution, arguing that the court should draw adverse inferences of guilt from his silence. The document also begins a legal argument stating that 'Litigation Privilege' does not protect Epstein from claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033416.jpg
An email exchange between Edward Rød Larsen and Jeffrey Epstein regarding edits to college application essays for NYU. Epstein suggests a specific change to the conclusion of 'Essay 1', and the thread includes the full draft text of two essays focusing on Art History, international background, and 20th-century ideological history.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033414.jpg
An email from Edward Rød Larsen to Jeffrey Epstein containing two draft essays for a college application to NYU (Early Decision). The essays discuss Larsen's international upbringing, his mother's upcoming role as Norwegian Ambassador to the UN, his interest in Art History, and a second essay analyzing political art and ideology in the 20th century. The document suggests Epstein acted in an advisory capacity regarding Larsen's education.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-09-17 | Received | Burman, Critton, ... | Court | $138.80 | Invoice for cancelled deposition services (Appe... | View |
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity