Kaplan
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
C.I.R.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
EFTA00020088.pdf
This document is an email chain from June 2020 regarding a 'Touhy Request' for evidence in the civil case 'Jane Doe v. Indyke et al.' in the SDNY. Attorney Robert Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP submits the request, and internal recipients (likely government officials given the nature of a Touhy request) discuss fulfilling it, noting it is similar to a request from 'Kaplan' and does not interfere with ongoing proceedings, with the exception of 'Item 8'.
DOJ-OGR-00021088.jpg
This page from a legal document argues that the Court's precedents do not require applying the 'Annabi' canon to agreements formed outside its Circuit. It cites several cases to support the position that federal plea agreements should be analyzed under general choice-of-law principles for contracts, highlighting a magistrate judge's questioning of the current practice.
DOJ-OGR-00021054.jpg
This document is page 'vi' (Page 7 of 113) of a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, bearing the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021054. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents referenced in the main brief, including cases such as 'Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S.' and 'Martin v. Hadix'. The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice filing, likely related to a FOIA case or appeal given the OGR marking.
DOJ-OGR-00010403.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion denying a defendant's post-trial motions. The court rejects the defendant's argument that a witness's (Jane's) testimony caused "ultimate prejudice" leading to improper convictions on Mann Act counts. The court also denies the defendant's claim of prejudicial pre-indictment delay, stating that the defendant failed to meet the stringent two-part legal test required to prove such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00010389.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal distinction between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment. It cites numerous precedents to argue that for a variance to warrant reversal of a conviction, the defendant must demonstrate 'substantial prejudice'. The document concludes by noting that the Defendant has filed a motion under Rule 33 to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009445.jpg
This legal document is a court order from the First Judicial Department regarding attorney Catherine M. Conrad. The court grants the Departmental Disciplinary Committee's motion to suspend Conrad indefinitely due to a medical disability related to her admitted alcohol dependency. The court denies Conrad's cross-motion for immediate reinstatement, stating she has not yet met the burden of proving her fitness to resume the practice of law.
DOJ-OGR-00003082.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, discussing the legal standards for perjury. The author argues against dismissing a perjury count before trial based on 'fundamental ambiguity,' citing numerous court cases to establish that such challenges are typically evaluated after a trial. The text distinguishes between answers that are literally true but misleading (which may not be perjury) and answers that are outright false, regardless of responsiveness (which can be perjury).
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity