Miller
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Greer
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Pate
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | CL brought to Epstein's house by Miller, dinner served, coerced into massage and sexual acts. | Epstein's House, El Brillo Way | View |
| N/A | Sexual assault/exploitation | CL was brought to Epstein's house by Miller, had dinner, then was coerced into providing a massag... | Epstein's house on El Brill... | View |
| N/A | Trip | CL was taken to Epstein's house by Miller, had dinner, and was then led upstairs for what she was... | Jeffrey Epstein's house on ... | View |
| 2019-08-05 | N/A | Intensive legal visits for Jeffrey Epstein. | MCC New York | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal case | Citation of United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018). | 1st Cir. | View |
| 2018-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The First Circuit considered the issue of Section 3283's retroactivity in *United States v. Mille... | N/A | View |
| 2004-05-01 | N/A | Victim (age 15-16) taken to Epstein's house, told she would model lingerie. Instead, instructed t... | Jeffrey Epstein's house, Pa... | View |
| 1976-01-01 | Legal case | The case of United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 was decided, establishing precedent for th... | N/A | View |
| 1967-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case citation for Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967). | N/A | View |
| 0018-06-10 | N/A | Planned focus on 'Miller' mentioned in messages from previous day. | Unspecified | View |
EFTA00035074.pdf
This document is a handwritten 'Psych Observation Log' for Jeffrey Epstein (Inmate #76318-054) covering July 8, 2019, to July 10, 2019. It details his behavior in 15-minute intervals while under suicide/psych watch in Cell #4, recorded by various 'Inmate Companions.' The logs record his sleeping habits, pacing, meals, bathroom usage, and conversations regarding prison etiquette, 'arbitrage,' 'celebs he knows,' and his legal visits.
EFTA00034379.pdf
This document is a Psych Observation Log for Jeffrey Epstein (Reg# 76318-054) covering July 8, 2019, to July 10, 2019. It details his behavior, sleep patterns, meals, and conversations with assigned 'Inmate Companions' while on suicide watch/observation in Cell #4. The log records specific conversations where Epstein asks about prison life, discusses 'the escort business,' mentions celebrities he knows, and complains about prison food.
EFTA00033966.pdf
This document is a Psych Observation Log for Jeffrey Epstein (Inmate 76318-054) covering July 8-10, 2019, shortly before his death. The log details his daily activities including sleeping, pacing, meals (which he criticized), and extended legal visits. Notably, the logs record lengthy conversations with 'Inmate Companions' where Epstein received tutorials on prison etiquette and discussed topics ranging from arbitrage and the 'escort business' to celebrities he knew.
DOJ-OGR-00020996.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a grooming tactic to gain victims' trust and facilitate sexual abuse. It cites testimony from a victim named 'Jane' about receiving money and payments for lessons, and mentions promises made to another victim, 'Annie'. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the conspiracy, noting that sexual conduct occurred not only in New York and Florida but also in New Mexico and London, involving other victims like Carolyn and Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00030670.jpg
This document is a Probable Cause Affidavit from the Palm Beach Police Department, dated May 1, 2006, signed by Detective Joe Recarey. It details the accounts of a victim identified as 'CL' who was recruited by an individual named 'Miller' and coordinated by Sarah Kellen to perform massages on Jeffrey Epstein at his home on El Brillo Way, which escalated into sexual acts. The affidavit outlines a pattern of behavior where females were recruited, brought to the house, paid $200 for sexualized massages, and threatened into silence.
DOJ-OGR-00030646.jpg
This Probable Cause Affidavit from the Palm Beach Police Department details the account of a victim, 'CL', who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein on two separate occasions. The document describes how CL was lured to Epstein's home, paid $200 for each 'massage' which involved unwanted sexual contact, and threatened into silence. The affidavit also notes a broader pattern of similar incidents involving other women, coordinated by an associate named Sarah Kellen, which was uncovered during the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00030625.jpg
This Probable Cause Affidavit details two incidents where a woman identified as CL was brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house for what she believed was lingerie modeling but resulted in massages involving sexual assault and payment. It also describes an ongoing investigation revealing a pattern of similar incidents with other 'females' coordinated by Sarah Kellen, all of whom were over eighteen and provided similar accounts of Epstein's massage routine. The document was sworn to by Det Joe Recarey on May 1, 2006.
DOJ-OGR-00021699.jpg
This legal document argues that the extension of the statute of limitations for charges against Maxwell was legally sound. It cites multiple court cases (Enterprise, Weingarten, Cruz v. Maypa) to support the conclusion of Judge Nathan that since the original limitations period had not expired, Maxwell was not deprived of a vested right. The document further asserts that such an extension does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
DOJ-OGR-00021656.jpg
This document is page viii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various federal court cases where the United States was the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the parent document.
DOJ-OGR-00016959.jpg
This document is page 33 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions for a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (Mann Act). The Judge cites *United States v. An Soon Kim*, arguing that the word 'dominant' is not required in the statutory language for proving the purpose of transportation, while Everdell attempts to distinguish the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016956.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, is arguing a point of law to the judge regarding the jury instruction for 'dominant purpose' in a case about crossing state lines for criminal sexual conduct. He cites legal precedents, including the 'Sand' and 'Miller' cases, to support his position that the purpose need only be one of the dominant purposes, not the sole one.
DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a judge's ruling sustaining the government's objection to the introduction of prior inconsistent statements as extrinsic evidence without first giving the witness an opportunity to explain them. The ruling cites Federal Rule 613(a) and case precedents including United States v. Surdow and Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure.
DOJ-OGR-00009152.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing by the U.S. Government, likely a motion or memorandum. It cites various legal precedents to establish the standards for conducting a post-verdict inquiry into potential juror misconduct. The Government argues that these standards have been met with respect to 'Juror 50' due to an inconsistency between his public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer on a juror questionnaire, and therefore consents to a hearing to determine if the juror lied.
DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, distinguishes between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment, citing several legal precedents. It argues that the central element, or 'core of criminality,' of the Mann Act charges against Epstein and Ms. Maxwell was a clear scheme to entice underage girls to travel to New York for the purpose of violating New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00010379.jpg
This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a method of grooming victims like Jane and Annie, paying for things like lessons, school, and promising trips. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the criminal conspiracy, noting that while specific counts focused on New York and Florida, witnesses testified to sexual conduct occurring in New Mexico and London as well. The text highlights the testimony of victims, including Carolyn and Virginia Roberts, who were paid for sexualized massages.
DOJ-OGR-00003127.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) arguing for the admissibility of evidence. It cites numerous Second Circuit precedents to establish that 'uncharged criminal conduct' is admissible in conspiracy cases when it explains the relationship between coconspirators or completes the story of the crime, rather than merely showing bad character. The text focuses on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
This document is page 135 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the current case is distinguishable from past precedents regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of false evidence. The text asserts that the defendant has not been deprived of a fair trial and notes that a jury will determine if her statements during April and July 2016 depositions were perjurious.
DOJ-OGR-00003044.jpg
This legal document page outlines the Fourth Amendment's third-party doctrine, which generally holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. It cites key Supreme Court cases like Miller and Smith to support this doctrine, while also discussing the narrow exception for cell site location information established in the Carpenter case. The document concludes by emphasizing that a defendant bears the burden of proving, through sworn evidence, that their own rights were violated to have standing to challenge a search.
DOJ-OGR-00002994.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, analyzes the permissibility of applying statutes of limitation retroactively. It discusses several Second Circuit precedents, distinguishing between impermissibly reviving time-barred claims (*In re Enterprise Mortgage*) and permissibly altering filing periods for live claims (*Vernon*). The text also references an opinion by Judge Learned Hand on the fairness of extending an active criminal statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00002953.jpg
This document is page 19 of 239 from Document 204 filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It is a Table of Authorities page (numbered xviii) listing legal precedents cited in the filing, specifically cases beginning with 'United States v.' followed by names starting with M through N. It contains standard legal citations and page references for the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00002943.jpg
This document is page 9 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations alphabetically from 'Miller v. Pate' to 'SEC v. TheStreet.com'. Each entry includes the case name, its legal reporter citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00032358.jpg
This document is a Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report dated February 17, 2006. It details an investigation where detectives interviewed a female victim who stated she was 15 or 16 years old (circa May/June 2004) when she was recruited to model lingerie but was instead taken to Jeffrey Epstein's house. The report describes an encounter involving Epstein and an associate named 'Miller,' where the victim was instructed to perform a massage, during which Epstein exposed himself, touched the victim sexually, and masturbated before paying her $200 and threatening her not to speak.
DOJ-OGR-00004852.jpg
This document is Page 40 of 80 from a legal filing (Exhibit) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion regarding *Commonwealth v. Cosby*, discussing the procedural history of Bill Cosby's appeal and the legal standards for admitting 'prior bad acts' evidence under Rule 404(b) and the 'common plan, scheme, or design' exception. It cites precedents *Commonwealth v. Miller* and *Commonwealth v. Tyson* to analyze how such evidence is used to establish identity or counter defenses of consent.
DOJ-OGR-00005192.jpg
Handwritten legal notes analyzing the scope of Section 3283's "offense involving" language, discussing its application to repealed offenses and specific statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 113(a) and Chapter 109A. The text cites case law including United States v. Johnson, Miller v. United States, and United States v. Kepler to explore jurisdictional limits and the definition of conduct involving abuse.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity