| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
This document is an excerpt from a law review article (103 Minn. L. Rev.) discussing the oversight of declination decisions in state justice systems compared to the federal system. It highlights the lack of administrative and judicial review for state prosecutors' charging decisions and details the limited exceptions and historical context through extensive footnotes citing case law.
This document is page 16 of a legal filing submitted by 'the Post' (likely a media organization) arguing against the wholesale sealing of appellate briefs in a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. Citing New York Civil Rights Law and case precedents, the Post argues that the District Attorney should only be permitted to redact the names of victims to protect their identities, rather than keeping the entire record sealed. The document includes a footnote discussing the Post's inability to notify victims directly due to lack of knowledge of their identities.
This document is page 14 of a legal brief or motion arguing for the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein's classification as a level three sex offender. The text draws a parallel to Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance's failure to prosecute Harvey Weinstein in 2015, arguing that the public has a right to scrutinize how the justice system handles 'rich and well-connected' sex offenders to ensure no impropriety or undue deference occurred. It cites legal precedents emphasizing that public access to court proceedings is essential for analyzing judicial reasoning and ensuring fairness.
This document is page 13 of a legal filing arguing for the unsealing of appellate briefs related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text asserts a strong public interest in transparency to understand why the District Attorney's Office, led by DA Vance, argued for lenient treatment of Epstein. It cites various legal precedents regarding the presumption of openness in court records and mentions that Vance has faced criticism for favoring wealthy defendants.
This document is page 12 of a legal brief filed by 'The Post' (likely the NY Post) arguing for the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein. The text argues that there is 'good cause' to unseal these documents to help the public understand why the Manhattan District Attorney's Office initially argued for Epstein to be registered only as a level one sex offender, suggesting 'undue deference' to a 'dangerous pedophile.' The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
This is page 11 of a legal argument filed by 'The Post' (likely the NY Post) seeking a court order to unseal appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender designation. The text argues that despite the Manhattan District Attorney's opposition, the public interest in scrutinizing how prosecutors handled Epstein's case outweighs the reasons for secrecy, provided victims' names are redacted. It cites multiple New York legal precedents supporting the media's right to petition for access to court records.
This document is page 10 of a legal motion filed by 'The Post' (a media organization) in a New York court. The motion requests the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex-offender registration (SORA) proceedings, with victim names redacted. It details procedural history, including the withdrawal of a previous motion from December 21 to resolve disputes over notifying Florida prosecutors, and notes the Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Friedman Agnifilo's stance on the unsealing.
This document is page 9 of a legal filing outlining a dispute between 'The Post' and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office regarding the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein. The text highlights that while Epstein's counsel took 'no position' on the unsealing, the DA's office reversed its initial stance of 'not opposing' the motion and subsequently opposed it, arguing that the Post failed to notify prosecutors in Florida. The document includes a footnote disputing the legal necessity of notifying Florida prosecutors.
This document, likely a page from a House Oversight Committee report or legal brief, details the lenient legal treatment Jeffrey Epstein received in both Florida (2008) and New York (2011). It cites N.Y. Post reporting that suggests Epstein's powerful connections to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Prince Andrew may have influenced prosecutors to grant him favorable conditions, such as serving time in county jail rather than state prison and receiving a lower sex-offender status classification. The text specifically criticizes the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for 'going to bat' for Epstein during a 2011 hearing.
This document discusses the legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, specifically focusing on the Manhattan District Attorney's shift in position regarding his sex offender adjudication and the sealing of appeal briefs. It highlights the public controversy and media interest in the perceived lenient handling of Epstein's prosecution in both Florida and New York.
This document, likely from a House Oversight investigation, details a January 2011 hearing where Justice Ruth Pickholz designated Jeffrey Epstein a level three sex offender, rejecting arguments from ADA Gaffney who sought a lower designation. The judge expressed shock at the Manhattan DA's leniency, noting she had never seen prosecutors make such a 'downward argument' in such a troubling case. The document also notes that Epstein's subsequent appeal was denied, with the court affirming the designation based on reliable proof of criminal conduct.
This document is a legal filing requesting the court to order the District Attorney's Office to provide redacted appellate briefs to 'the Post' while protecting victim anonymity. It details the factual background of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 conviction and the subsequent disagreement between the NYBSO, which recommended level three sex offender status, and ADA Jennifer Gaffney, who argued for level one status.
This document is page 2 of a legal motion filed by 'The Post' (likely the New York Post) requesting the unsealing of appellate briefs related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text highlights that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office initially argued for Epstein to be adjudicated as a 'level one offender' (lowest risk) despite evidence of offenses against underage girls, before changing their position on appeal. The filing argues that the public has a right to know the justifications for this initial leniency and alleges potential prosecutorial missteps and favoritism.
This document is a Preliminary Statement from a legal motion filed by NYP Holdings, Inc. (New York Post) seeking to unseal briefs related to an appeal concerning Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender status in New York. The Post argues that unsealing the documents is necessary to understand why the Manhattan District Attorney's Office initially sought lenient treatment for Epstein, citing suspicions that his wealth and connections to Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew influenced prosecutors. The filing follows renewed scrutiny generated by the Miami Herald's 2018 investigative reporting.
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief, stamped by the House Oversight Committee. It lists legal citations including Supreme Court cases on press freedom, New York Civil Rights statutes, and two news articles: one from 2008 regarding Jeffrey Epstein pleading guilty to prostitution charges, and one from 2017 regarding the Manhattan DA's failure to prosecute the Trumps or Harvey Weinstein.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page ii) from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion. It lists various legal precedents (case law) primarily focused on media, public access to court records, and sealing orders (e.g., NY Times v. US, Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court). Crucially, it cites 'People v. Epstein' (2011) as a key authority used 'passim' (throughout) the main document, suggesting the filing relates to the legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein, possibly regarding the unsealing of records. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation.
This document is the Table of Contents for a legal brief filed by 'The Post' (likely a newspaper). The brief argues for the unsealing of appellate briefings related to Jeffrey Epstein's case in the First Department. It outlines sections discussing Epstein's sex crime conviction, media interest in the lenient handling of his case by NY and FL prosecutors, and the legal arguments for public access.
This document is the cover page of a Memorandum of Law filed in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. It details a motion by NYP Holdings, Inc. (represented by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) to unseal appellate briefs in the case of The People of the State of New York against Jeffrey E. Epstein. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
This document is the back cover/contact page of a 'Global Foresight' report for the Third Quarter of 2017 by Rockefeller & Co. It lists office locations in New York, Washington DC, Boston, and Wilmington, along with legal disclaimers and footnotes referencing articles about corporate governance and Samsung/Korea bribery scandals. The document bears a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012094', indicating it is part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
This document is the back cover of a brochure or report for Rockefeller & Co., stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012078', indicating it is part of evidence gathered by the House Oversight Committee. It lists contact details for offices in New York, Washington DC, Boston, and Wilmington, along with links to 2012-2015 governance reports from major financial institutions (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, etc.) and standard legal disclaimers.
This document is a printout of the 'Insights & News' webpage for Rockefeller & Co., dated November 14, 2017, bearing the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012060. It lists four company events from 2016: participation in a homeless outreach program, attendance at the Nexus Global Youth Summit in NYC, a presentation on the 'Driverless Economy' in Boston/NYC, and a presentation on sustainability in Atlanta. The document identifies several employees including Karen Wawrzaszek, Jack McMackin, Meredith Block, and Judy Lee.
A Bloomberg article from October 4, 2017, details Greg Fleming's appointment as CEO of the newly formed Rockefeller Capital Management. The firm, created in partnership with the Rockefeller family office, is set to be acquired by Viking Global Investors. The document is stamped with a House Oversight Bates number.
This document is a fragment of a press release or corporate announcement detailing a transaction between Rockefeller Financial Services (RFS) and Viking Global Investors LP to form a new firm. It lists the incoming board members, including David Rockefeller Jr. and Brian Kaufmann, and outlines the financial scale of both entities, with RFS advising $16.2 billion and Viking managing $25 billion. The document identifies legal and financial advisors for both parties and provides media contact information for Teneo Strategy and Vested. It bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.
This document is a Business Wire press release dated October 4, 2017, announcing the formation of Rockefeller Capital Management. The new independent firm is a partnership between Rockefeller Financial Services, Inc. and Gregory J. Fleming, who will serve as CEO, with financial backing from Viking Global Investors LP. The document outlines the firm's focus on wealth management, asset management, and strategic advisory, and includes quotes from David Rockefeller, Jr. and Gregory Fleming regarding the partnership and future growth strategies. The footer indicates this document is part of a House Oversight collection.
This document is an internal email thread, likely among Latham & Watkins staff (including Kathy Ruemmler), dated August 11, 2016. It circulates press coverage from the LA Times and OC Business Journal regarding a legal victory where a federal jury decided that Emirates NBD bank did not defraud InfoSpan. The email highlights a 'shout out' to Dean Dunlavey, presumably one of the lead attorneys on the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity