District Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Assignment of civil case caption 9:08-CV-80736. | District Court | View |
| 2006-10-06 | N/A | Grand Jury subpoena issued by US District Court, Southern District of Florida | Southern District of Florida | View |
DOJ-OGR-00008773.jpg
This document is page 67 of 83 from a court filing dated December 19, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It contains 'Instruction No. 47: Expert Testimony,' which instructs the jury on how to evaluate the credibility and weight of expert witness testimony, emphasizing that the jury remains the sole fact-finder.
DOJ-OGR-00008722.jpg
This document is page 16 of a court filing (Instruction No. 10) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 19, 2021. It summarizes the specific counts in the indictment against her, detailing charges of conspiracy, enticing travel for illegal sexual acts, and sex trafficking of minors between 1994 and 2004. The text specifically names a victim 'Jane' in relation to charges occurring between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00008720.jpg
This document is Page 14 of a court filing (Document 565) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 19, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 8: Reasonable Doubt' for the trial of Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell). The text defines reasonable doubt for the jury, explaining that it is not sympathy or speculation, and instructs them on their duty to convict if guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, or to acquit if it is not.
DOJ-OGR-00017565.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring a legal debate between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger). The issue concerns the admissibility of statements made by the witness 'Jane's' mother; the government argues it is for the 'effect on the listener' rather than the truth of the matter, while the defense argues it introduces hearsay and precludes cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00005897.jpg
This document is a court exhibit filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It consists of a page from the *Journal of Interpersonal Violence* containing a bibliography of academic papers regarding child sexual abuse, incest, and pedophilia, followed by an author biography for Dr. Park Dietz. Dr. Dietz is identified as a forensic psychiatrist and president of Park Dietz & Associates, specializing in child sexual abuse litigation and misconduct prevention.
DOJ-OGR-00005891.jpg
This document is an excerpt from the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, filed as an exhibit in the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It contains a graph and text analyzing the historical usage and evolution of the term 'grooming' in professional literature regarding child sexual abuse. The text highlights how offenders groom not just victims, but also parents and communities to maintain a 'nice guy' persona, citing experts like Ken Lanning and Ann Burgess.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019807.jpg
This document appears to be a page of endnotes (page 319) from a book, likely 'How America Lost Its Secrets' by Edward Jay Epstein, bearing a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp. The text details sources and citations regarding Edward Snowden's flight from the US, the revocation of his passport by the State Department in June 2013, and various interviews conducted by the author with intelligence officials and journalists. The document references whistleblowers, the FBI, the NSA, and Russian President Vladimir Putin's involvement in the Snowden affair. While the prompt requests 'Epstein-related' data, this specific page concerns Edward Snowden; the 'Epstein' connection is likely the author of the book, Edward Jay Epstein, rather than Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019392.jpg
This document is an internal memo dated October 17, 2006, from the New York Office to Miami, referencing case 31E-MM-108062. It states that no further action will be taken by the New York Office regarding a matter at the United States District Courthouse at 701 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, as the lead is considered covered.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018946.jpg
This document appears to be page 2 of an internal FBI memo (file 31E-MM-108062) dated October 17, 2006. It discusses a subpoena requiring an unidentified female ('she') to appear at the U.S. District Courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida. The memo concludes that a specific lead is 'covered' and no further action will be taken by the redacted entity at that time.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017792.jpg
This document is a cover sheet for 'Exhibit 4' associated with court case 1:19-cv-03377, filed on April 16, 2019. It bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017792, indicating it is part of a document production for the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017771.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit 8', filed on April 16, 2019, as part of court case 1:19-cv-03377. It bears the Bates stamp identifier HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017771, indicating it is part of a production related to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017770.jpg
This document appears to be the final page of a printed Axios article included as an exhibit in court case 1:19-cv-03377. The page contains the article URL, a 'Sexual Assault' tag, and a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017770', indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee. The text references Alan Dershowitz stating he is still advising Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017938.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing from April 2019 outlining the legal history between Virginia Roberts (Giuffre), her attorneys (Edwards and Cassell), and Alan Dershowitz. It details a 2014 motion where Roberts alleged she was trafficked by Epstein and forced to have sex with Dershowitz, followed by Dershowitz's public attacks on her lawyers, a subsequent defamation lawsuit, and a confidential settlement reached in 2016. It also references the beginning of the Miami Herald's investigative series in November 2018.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017866.jpg
This document is page 801 from a 2005 legal opinion regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation (349 F.Supp.2d 765). The text discusses the 'discretionary function' exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the court's finding that this exception bars claims against Saudi Royals Prince Sultan and Prince Turki, who were accused of donating to charities linked to al Qaeda. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was likely part of a Congressional document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839.jpg
This document is page 774 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, containing legal headnotes (61-67) regarding the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) litigation following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The text details court rulings on personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian princes, banks, and individuals alleged to be on the 'Golden Chain' donor list for al Qaeda. While found in a House Oversight Committee file (likely related to investigations into financial institutions used by Epstein), the text itself focuses strictly on 9/11-related jurisdictional case law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017835.jpg
This document contains legal headnotes from a court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) in relation to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It details court rulings that alleged actions by a Saudi Prince and Saudi Arabia—such as charitable contributions and intelligence decisions—fell under the "discretionary function exception" of the FSIA, thereby barring claims from victims' survivors. It also touches on procedural standards for motions to dismiss regarding personal jurisdiction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017824.jpg
This document is a cover sheet designating 'Exhibit 3' for a court filing in Case 1:19-cv-03377, filed on April 16, 2019. The document bears a Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017824', indicating it is part of materials produced for or by the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017800.jpg
This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit 1', which is part of a legal filing (Document 1-1) submitted on April 16, 2019, in case number 1:19-cv-03377. It features a Bates stamp indicating it is part of the House Oversight Committee's records (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017800).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017648.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, produced as part of a House Oversight investigation (likely related to the Epstein case given David Schoen's name at the footer). The text analyzes the history of the Advisory Committee's amendments to Federal Criminal Rules and critiques the lack of support for crime victims' rights, specifically the failure to appoint counsel for indigent victims or clarify their role in plea processes under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It highlights the disparity between defendants, who are guaranteed counsel, and victims, who are not.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017636.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2007 Utah Law Review article by Paul G. Cassell regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are insufficient to protect victims. The document was likely produced by attorney David Schoen (whose name appears in the footer) to the House Oversight Committee, as indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017636'. This is relevant to the Epstein case as the CVRA was the central statute invoked regarding the failure to notify victims of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017626.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law journal article or brief) submitted to the House Oversight Committee, indicated by the Bates stamp. It discusses the legal definition of a 'target' of investigation by the DOJ and argues for a parallel definition for 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Section B specifically applies this legal test to the Jeffrey Epstein case, stating as fact that he sexually abused over thirty minor girls between 2001 and 2007.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017613.jpg
This document appears to be Page 10 of a legal filing or article (Excerpt from 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59) submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically citing the 'In re Dean' (BP Products) case to argue that victims have rights to confer with the government before charges are formally filed or plea deals are reached. While Epstein is not named on this page, the legal argument mirrors the controversy surrounding the failure to notify victims during Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017599.jpg
The document appears to be a composite of notes or a draft correspondence from a House Oversight file (stamped 017599). It begins by detailing a legal complaint (McGuire v. IBM) alleging a cover-up and child exploitation involving the Gunther family and IBM, before transitioning into a letter addressed to the Washington Post criticizing Kenneth Starr. The author attacks Starr's credibility by highlighting his legal representation of Blackwater regarding the Fallujah ambush and his role as attorney for 'convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.'
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity