district judge
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-16 | Court ruling | The district judge denied the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the CVRA case following... | N/A | View |
| 2019-07-08 | N/A | Scheduled presentation/arraignment of Jeffrey Epstein. | U.S. District Court, 500 Pe... | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | District Judge in Miami issues opinion finding victims' rights were violated in the Epstein case ... | Miami | View |
| 2016-03-17 | N/A | Protective Order signed by the Judge. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case | The Second Circuit case, Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee, 847 F.2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988), address... | Connecticut | View |
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee, 847 F.2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988) was decided, in which... | Connecticut | View |
EFTA00029443.pdf
An internal email from a Deputy Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) dated February 22, 2019. The email discusses a recent opinion by a district judge in Miami regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically noting that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by entering a non-prosecution agreement without notifying victims. The sender advises EDNY staff to be mindful of CVRA obligations and victim notification in their own plea negotiations to avoid similar issues.
EFTA00014016.pdf
A confidential letter dated September 18, 2008, from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDFL) to the Florida Bar Ethics Counsel seeking a written opinion on the propriety of contacting victims. The letter discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving a defendant (implied to be Jeffrey Epstein) who pleaded guilty to state sex offenses. The AUSA defends against an accusation by a victim's attorney that notifying victims of the NPA and the availability of independent counsel (Robert Josefsberg) violated Florida Bar rules against solicitation.
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
This legal filing argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell is weak because the anonymous accusers' stories are contradictory, uncorroborated, and fabricated for money and fame, only emerging after Epstein's death. The document also contends that the district judge erred by accepting the indictment as proof of a strong case and that the government's reliance on legal precedents is misplaced due to a lack of meaningful evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (originally 2012, refiled 2022) discussing attorney ethics regarding the reporting of perjury (fraud on the tribunal). It cites a precedent case involving 'Doe,' arguing that an attorney must have actual knowledge, not just strong suspicion, of perjury before a duty to disclose arises. The author of this text notes in a footnote that they served as the expert witness for 'Doe' in a Connecticut disciplinary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00003125.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is a government response in a criminal case. The prosecution argues that evidence concerning 'Minor Victim-3' is admissible to prove a conspiracy, even though a direct charge based on her testimony is time-barred because she turned 25 before 2003. The government asserts that the charges remain timely due to the involvement of 'Minor Victim-1' and 'Minor Victim-2' and distinguishes the current case from a cited precedent (*Hsia*) by stating the alleged conduct, grooming a minor for Jeffrey Epstein, is central to the conspiracy.
DOJ-OGR-00020332.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated May 17, 2021, arguing against the mistreatment of Ms. Maxwell, specifically regarding sleep deprivation and accusations about hygiene. The defense argues that the government misrepresented facts by claiming Maxwell caused a smell in her cell by not flushing, while the defense asserts the smell was due to MDC infrastructure issues. This claim is supported by testimony from another inmate, Tiffany Days, who described a 'feces flood' at the facility.
United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) - Requ...
Submission of additional information regarding payments to witnesses, police reports, foreign passport, and seized cash/diamonds to support detention.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity