| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This document is a FedEx invoice dated November 18, 2002, detailing three shipments sent by Cecilia Steen and Jeffrey E. Epstein from 457 Madison Ave, New York. The packages, all picked up on November 11, 2002, were sent to Stefani Burns, Alan Dershowitz, and Peg Ugland (at N.A. Property). The invoice provides tracking numbers, delivery dates, signatories, and the total shipping costs for each transaction.
This document is a FedEx invoice dated November 4, 2002, detailing three international shipments sent by Cecilia Steen and Jeffrey E. Epstein from New York on October 28, 2002. The recipients were Jeanne Brennan of Financial Trust Company in St. Thomas, Mar E Joseph Experton of Berlioz & Co., and Mylene Jampanoi. The total shipping charges detailed on this page amount to $120.91.
This document is a Plaintiff's response to interrogatories in a civil case against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. It lists specific interactions Jane Doe had with Epstein's associates between 1994 and 1999, identifying Ghislaine Maxwell, Juan Alessi, Darren Indyke, Adam Perry Lang, Lesley Groff, Mark Epstein, and Sarah Kellen. The response details roles these individuals played, ranging from facilitating abuse and meetings to providing transportation and making threatening financial demands.
This document is page 33 of a Curriculum Vitae or bibliography for Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, listing her academic publications between 2018 and 2020. The publications focus heavily on false memory, eyewitness testimony, repressed memory, and the intersection of psychology and law, including a critical paper on Title IX investigations. The document contains a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00015244) and a file identifier (LOFTUS-046), suggesting it was part of a legal production, likely related to her role as an expert witness.
This document is page 23 of a Curriculum Vitae (CV) or bibliography belonging to Elizabeth F. Loftus, identified by the header 'LOFTUS-046'. It lists academic publications from 2002 and 2003, focusing heavily on false memories, eyewitness testimony, and the intersection of psychology and law. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00015234), suggesting it was included in discovery materials or a government report.
This document is the first page of the Curriculum Vitae for Elizabeth F. Loftus, a Distinguished Professor at UC Irvine. It outlines her education, teaching experience, and honorary degrees. The document is stamped as a Defendant's Exhibit (EL-1) for the case 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), which corresponds to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, indicating Loftus was utilized as an expert witness for the defense.
This document is the first page of a civil legal complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. A redacted female plaintiff, aged 21, is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen for damages in excess of $15,000. The document establishes the residency of the parties, noting Epstein's multiple properties across the US and abroad.
A handwritten diary entry dated January 25, 1996, by a young female describing a recent trip to New York. The author details visiting Jeffrey Epstein's mansion and a movie outing where Epstein initiated physical contact (hand-holding, caressing arm/foot) which gave her a 'weird feeling.' She expresses internal conflict, dismissing her discomfort because Epstein is 'being so amazing' by paying for her summer program and helping with college.
This is a diary entry dated January 7, 1996, in which the author reflects on a recent, life-changing trip to New York. The author expresses a deep affection for the city and a desire to live there, while also mentioning missing a redacted female companion. A highlight of the trip was seeing "Phantom of the Opera" and then visiting Jeff Epstein's house for champagne, where the author found him to be "down to earth & easy to talk to."
This legal document describes the process of two separate grand jury proceedings related to indictments against an individual named Maxwell. It details that on June 29, 2020, and March 29, 2021, grand juries heard testimony from an FBI agent and an NYPD detective, respectively, who presented hearsay evidence summarizing the government's investigation. The document outlines the exhibits presented and the subsequent indictments returned by the juries.
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing the timeline of events following the Miami Herald's 2018 reporting and Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death. It covers the dismissal of the indictment against Epstein due to his suicide, the ongoing CVRA litigation by victims (specifically Jane Doe 1) in the 11th Circuit regarding the government's failure to confer with victims before the NPA, and the initiation of the OPR investigation requested by Senator Ben Sasse.
This document outlines procedures for handling confidential information in a legal case. It details the timeline for designating material to counsel, the requirement for a Motion to Seal when filing confidential information with the Court, and the process for challenging designations of protected material, including "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" classifications.
This legal document, part of the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is based on tainted evidence. The defense claims the government made false representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and therefore the perjury charges stemming from Maxwell's depositions in that case should be suppressed. The document provides factual background on the civil case, where Virginia Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were involved in a scheme to sexually abuse and traffic her.
This legal document, part of a court filing in the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is fundamentally flawed. The defense claims the government made untrue representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and improperly used Maxwell's deposition transcripts from that case to bring perjury charges. The document requests that the Court suppress this evidence or grant a hearing to investigate the matter.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a court filing (Document 134) in the case USA v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. It lists legal authorities and articles referenced in the main brief, including a New York Daily News article about federal prosecutors declining to pursue Epstein and Maxwell in 2016, and a New York Times piece by Norman Mailer. It also cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, presents an analysis by a 'Mr. Martin' concerning the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic jurors. The analysis compares the demographic composition of the 'White Plains qualified wheel' (juror pool) to the eligible juror populations of the Manhattan Division and the entire Southern District of New York, finding significant disparities. This argument is being made in the context of a case involving 'Epstein's New York residence,' which is located in the Manhattan Division.
This document is page 3 (Table of Authorities) of a legal filing (Document 126) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists legal precedents (cases) and statutes cited in the brief, including Supreme Court cases like Duren v. Missouri and Second Circuit cases like United States v. Jackman. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002323.
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated January 25, 2021, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It lists contact information for two law firms, HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. and Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, identifying them as attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is page 7 of a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The defense argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are 'multiplicitous' and violate the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing requests the Court dismiss one of the counts.
This document is a page from a defense motion (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number 1:20-cr-00330) filed on January 25, 2021. It argues that Count One and Count Three of the indictment are multiplicitous and violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because they allege identical overt acts, geographic scope (NY, FL, NM, UK), and objectives. The filing concludes by requesting the Court dismiss one of the counts.
This document is page 6 of a legal defense filing (Document 122) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 25, 2021. The defense argues that Counts One and Three of the indictment are 'clones' because they share identical participants (Epstein and Maxwell), time periods (1994-1997), and operations (enticing minors to travel for abuse). The text specifically details an allegation regarding 'Minor Victim-1' being transported from Florida to New York for sexual abuse at Epstein's New York residence.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as an index, listing the legal precedents—including court cases, federal statutes, state law, and constitutional provisions—that are cited in the associated legal brief. The authorities listed are used to support the arguments made in the main document.
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 120) dated January 25, 2021, from the case U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the 'Mann Act Counts' (Counts One through Four) of the indictment, detailing allegations that Maxwell conspired with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to transport individuals for illegal sexual activity in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and London. It specifically notes the involvement of three accusers (Accuser-1, -2, and -3) and argues for the severance of Counts Five and Six to avoid juror confusion.
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'.
This is page 4 of a court filing (Document 106) from December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), citing precedents that a hearing should only be reopened if new information exists that was not known at the time of the original hearing. It introduces the discussion of the Defendant's renewed motion for bail.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity