Judge Rakoff
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Bianco
|
Professional |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-12 | N/A | Final pre-trial conference and oral argument on summary judgment motions at 4:00 PM (Handwritten) | SDNY Court | View |
| 2023-08-03 | N/A | Anticipated ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss (Handwritten) | SDNY Court | View |
| 2023-06-21 | N/A | Case Management Plan signed by Judge Rakoff | New York, New York | View |
| 2022-06-28 | Legal proceeding | Sentencing | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
EFTA00034782.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 30-31, 2019, involving Federal Defenders (David Patton, Peggy Cross-Goldenberg) complaining to prison administration about the 'SHU attorney visiting log jam' caused by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. The emails allege that Epstein's lawyers were allowed to 'hold' the only conference room even when Epstein was away for medical reasons (specifically regarding a fish allergy), preventing other attorneys from meeting their clients, including Cesar Sayoc. David Patton threatens to file a complaint with Judge Rakoff regarding the lack of access to Sayoc before his sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00015106.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 4 of an internal document, page 11 of the court filing) arguing for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts with specific conditions. The filing argues that while victim identities (such as Ms. Farmer) must be redacted to protect their privacy and psychological wellbeing, the Court should not 'rubber stamp' redactions for third-party affiliates of Epstein and Maxwell who have not been charged, suggesting such broad redactions would resemble a cover-up. It cites multiple legal precedents regarding privacy interests in sexual abuse cases, including *Giuffre v. Maxwell* and *Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase Bank*.
DOJ-OGR-00000769.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of grand jury transcripts with narrowly tailored redactions to protect the identities of victims like Ms. Farmer, citing their strong privacy interests as established in previous cases. However, it argues against redacting the names of third parties who have not been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, suggesting such an effort "smacks of a cover up" and requires independent court scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00000566.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. An unidentified speaker, likely an attorney, argues before the court about the bail conditions for Mr. Epstein, specifically advocating for the use of a private guard. The speaker cites Second Circuit precedents, including the Esposito case, to argue that such a condition is not discriminatory and is appropriate given that the flight risk arguments are predicated on the defendant's wealth.
DOJ-OGR-00000564.jpg
This document is page 54 of a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues for Epstein's release on bail, citing high-profile defendants like Madoff and Skilling who honored their bail conditions and surrendered for prison. The Judge asks if those precedents involved a 'presumption' of detention, which Weinberg admits they may not have, but argues that Epstein's 14-year history of non-danger negates that presumption.
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, particularly in the context of criminal law. It references several court cases and legal principles, arguing that statutes of limitations should not be applied retroactively unless Congress clearly states otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00016957.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal debate between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, before a judge regarding the precise wording of jury instructions for a case involving interstate travel for criminal sexual activity. The core of the argument is whether the law requires a 'dominant purpose' or if 'one of the dominant purposes' is sufficient, with both sides citing legal precedents like the Miller case and authorities like Sand to support their positions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity