| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Nesbit Kirkendul
|
Business associate |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed Witness
|
No known relationship |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Interviewee (A)
|
Questioned about meeting |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Marie Bilafonia
|
Professional collaboration fbi and usao |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Marie Bilafonia
|
Professional collaboration |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Employment |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Witness examination | Direct, cross, and redirect examination of witness Jason Richards. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness testimony | Special Agent Jason Richards is called as a witness, sworn in, and begins his direct examination ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | The witness is questioned about potential meetings with FBI agents Nesbit Kirkendall, Jason Richa... | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | The witness is questioned about potential meetings with FBI agents Nesbit Kirkendall, Jason Richa... | Unknown | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court trial is in session. The jury is brought in, and attorney Mr. Pagliuca calls his next wit... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-31 | N/A | Victim interviews conducted. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-08-21 | N/A | FBI agents served subpoena to Leslie Groff; Witness tampering incident occurred. | Home of Leslie Groff | View |
| 2007-04-24 | N/A | A taped interview was conducted with a redacted individual. The interview was held pursuant to a ... | Not specified | View |
| 2007-04-24 | N/A | A taped interview was conducted with an individual (name redacted) by the FBI and an Assistant U.... | Undisclosed | View |
| 2007-04-24 | N/A | A taped interview was conducted by the FBI with an individual represented by counsel, pursuant to... | Undisclosed | View |
This document is a 'Second Supplemental Privilege Log' from the case Jane Doe v. United States, listing internal DOJ, FBI, and USAO communications withheld from civil discovery. The log chronicles the timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation from late 2006 to August 2008, detailing the internal deliberations regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), plea negotiations, and the drafting of the indictment. It reveals critical details such as internal disagreements over plea terms, Epstein's refusal to plead to anything other than 'assault on the plane,' Jay Lefkowitz's admission that he never intended Epstein to register as a sex offender, and the government's struggles with victim notification and harassment by Epstein's defense team.
This document is a legal response filed on August 1, 2008, by attorneys for victims (Jane Doe #1 and #2) in the Jeffrey Epstein case, arguing that the U.S. Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The filing details how the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI secretly entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein in September 2007 while misleading victims for months that the investigation was ongoing and that federal charges were still possible. The motion requests the court to order the government to produce the full Non-Prosecution Agreement and FBI interview reports, and to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy for the violation of the victims' rights.
This document is a court opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States. The court ruled that the government violated the Petitioners' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The court granted partial summary judgment for the Petitioners regarding the CVRA violation and denied the government's cross-motion, while deferring the issue of remedy to a later date.
This document is an index of examinations from a legal transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. It lists four witnesses—Jason Richards, Amanda Young, Eva Adnersson Dubin, and Michelle Healy—and details which attorneys conducted their direct, cross, and redirect examinations, along with the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript.
This document is a transcript from a court trial held on August 10, 2022. After addressing the jury, the judge allows Mr. Pagliuca to call his next witness, Special Agent Jason Richards. Mr. Pagliuca begins the direct examination, during which Richards identifies himself as an FBI agent who investigates violations of United States laws.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey. They are debating whether the testimony of Special Agent Jason Richards is a relevant response to a jury note concerning an FBI deposition and the cross-examination of a person named Carolyn. The Court ultimately overrules the request to include the testimony but agrees to redact the jury foreperson's name from the notes before making them public.
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where a judge reads a note from the jury. The jury requests transcripts for five individuals who testified—Shawn, Cimberly Espinosa, Amanda Young, Jason Richards, and one with an unreadable name—and asks for clarification on whether they must continue deliberations through the holidays of 12/31 and 1/1. The judge also prepares to discuss a private juror conflict with counsel at a sealed sidebar conference.
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a dispute between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a response to a jury note. The jury requested an 'FBI deposition 3505-005' referenced during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The defense attempted to include testimony from Special Agent Jason Richards in the response, but the Court overruled the request, deeming it unresponsive to the jury's specific ask.
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, documents a judge addressing a note from the jury. The jury requests transcripts for five witnesses and seeks clarification on their deliberation schedule, specifically regarding holidays. The judge also indicates an intent to hold a sealed sidebar conference with counsel to discuss a private matter concerning a juror's scheduling conflict.
This document page outlines the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein starting in 2005 regarding the abuse of minors. It specifically details allegations of witness tampering, citing a 2007 incident where Epstein instructed his personal assistant, Leslie Groff, not to cooperate with FBI agents serving a subpoena at her home. The document also briefly mentions Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in the context of phone listings in an evidentiary journal.
A fax cover sheet from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office dated June 17, 2009, sent to a Detective. The document conveys phone record data analyzed for the period between June 30, 2008, and October 10, 2008. It highlights one specific phone number (redacted as Item 4) that had 100 call attempts and 78 accepted calls, while three other numbers showed zero activity. The footer file path suggests a connection to a 'Jason Richards'.
This document is a transcript of a legal testimony where an unidentified witness is questioned about their knowledge of matters related to Jeffrey Epstein. The witness denies meeting several named agents, including FBI agent Nesbit Kirkendall, and denies ever discussing being reimbursed by Epstein. They also deny any knowledge of an alleged promise by the government to provide money to girls at the end of a criminal prosecution.
This document is a transcript of page 2 of a taped FBI interview conducted on April 24, 2007, at 4:21 p.m. FBI Agents Jason Richards and Nesbit Kirkendul, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Bilafonia, are interviewing an unnamed woman who is present with her attorney, Jim Eisenberg, and his investigator, Carrie Sheehan. The interview is taking place pursuant to a subpoena, and the initial questioning focuses on confirming the interviewee's basic information, such as date of birth and address, which are redacted in the document.
The beginning of a taped interview conducted by the FBI and an AUSA with a redacted individual and her legal team, pursuant to a subpoena.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity