Chen
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
CGCC
|
Leadership |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Black
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992-01-01 | Legal case | Citation for United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205. | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 1992-01-01 | Court case decision | The case United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, was decided. | Northern District of Califo... | View |
| 1992-01-01 | Court case | Court case United States v. Chen. | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 1992-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) | N.D. Cal. | View |
| 1992-01-01 | N/A | Cited case United States v. Chen | N.D. Cal. | View |
EFTA00036643.pdf
An email chain from August 2019 between prison staff (Chen and Black) regarding the urgent reconstruction of inmate Jeffrey Epstein's '292 data' (likely monitoring logs) following his death. The correspondence confirms Epstein was found dead in his SHU cell at NYM on the morning of Saturday, August 10, 2019, and notes that he had been moved in and out of the SHU three times between July 7 and August 10. Staff were instructed to prioritize reconstructing records for the week of August 5-9, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition, likely in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The author argues that the defendant has not provided cases where such waivers are enforceable and cites several past court decisions (e.g., Epstein, Morrison, Stroh) where courts have deemed such waivers unenforceable, invalid until a formal request is made, or an 'empty gesture'. The document contrasts these with cases cited by the defense (e.g., Cirillo, Salvagno) where waivers were considered but were not the central factor in the court's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00001188.jpg
This document is page 3 of 15 from a legal filing (Document 103-2) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 23, 2020. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing two legal precedents: United States v. Chen and United States v. Orta. The document bears a Department of Justice footer (DOJ-OGR-00001188).
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001129.jpg
This document is page 33 of a legal filing (dated Dec 14, 2020) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell is not a flight risk because she has executed waivers of extradition and obtained expert reports (specifically from U.K. barrister David Perry) concluding she could not successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France. The text cites various legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) to support the validity of extradition waivers as conditions of release.
DOJ-OGR-00001100.jpg
This document is a "Table of Authorities" from a legal filing, specifically page iii of a larger document. It lists thirteen federal court cases, providing their full citations, the dates of the decisions, and the page numbers within the filing where each case is referenced. All listed cases feature the United States as a party.
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal arguments concerning the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites various legal precedents, noting that while some defendants have offered such waivers, courts have often not ruled on their enforceability or have deemed them unenforceable, as in the Epstein case where it was called an "empty gesture." The document highlights the significant legal uncertainty surrounding whether a foreign country would enforce such a waiver, making it a contentious point in the defendant's case against extradition to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002244(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contrasts different legal precedents, citing cases where such waivers were considered unenforceable or an 'empty gesture' (e.g., United States v. Epstein) against others where they were conditions of release, though their enforceability was not explicitly determined. The document highlights the legal ambiguity surrounding whether a foreign country, like France, would honor such a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00002220(1).jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell requesting release on bail. It argues against the government's assertion that she is a flight risk, citing her proposed bail package and extradition waivers, and claims the government's standard is impossibly high. The filing also uses the recent surge of COVID-19 cases at the MDC and the suspension of her legal visits as further justification for her release, arguing her constitutional rights are being eroded.
DOJ-OGR-00002209.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 23, 2020. It lists two legal precedents, United States v. Chen (1992) and United States v. Orta (1985), which are cited on pages 10 and 1 of the main document, respectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00002005.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 97) dated December 14, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell should be granted bail conditions involving an extradition waiver, citing legal precedents (Salvagno, Karni, Chen, Khashoggi) where such waivers were accepted as assurances against flight. The document states Maxwell has obtained expert reports from French and UK experts (specifically David Perry regarding the UK) concluding that she would be unable to resist extradition back to the US if she fled to those countries after signing a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00001976.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court filing (Document 97) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 14, 2020. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (United States v. Boustani, Bradshaw, Chen, etc.) cited elsewhere in the filing. The page is numbered 'iii' and bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00001976.
DOJ-OGR-00003141.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, is part of a prosecution's argument against a defendant's request for a bill of particulars. The prosecution contends that the indictment is sufficiently detailed and that the defendant has already received over 2.7 million pages of discovery, making further specifics unnecessary. A footnote reveals that the Government was unable to obtain records of commercial flights taken by the defendant, Epstein, or any victims because the investigation was opened after the records were no longer available.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00004729.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing from May 25, 2021, outlines the prosecution's argument against a defendant's motion. It details allegations from the S2 Indictment, stating the defendant facilitated the sex trafficking of 'Minor Victim-4' to Epstein by scheduling appointments, making payments, and encouraging recruitment of others. The document argues these details are sufficient to deny the defendant's request for a bill of particulars, citing several legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00020106.jpg
This page is the third page of a legal filing (Document 123) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 23, 2020. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing two legal precedents: United States v. Chen (1992) and United States v. Orta (1985). The document bears a DOJ-OGR footer.
DOJ-OGR-00020047.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell by citing several past U.S. court cases where defendants waived extradition rights to demonstrate they were not a flight risk. It then introduces expert reports, specifically one from U.K. barrister David Perry, which conclude it is highly unlikely Ms. Maxwell could successfully resist extradition from the U.K. or France back to the United States, further supporting the argument that she is not a flight risk.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020563.jpg
This document page, stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020563, outlines the influence of Chinese 'United Front' organizations operating as chambers of commerce in the United States. It specifically details the China General Chamber of Commerce (CGCC), led by Bank of China USA CEO Xu Chen, and its political engagement activities, including hosting US governors in 2017. The text warns that many local chambers may be misrepresented entities actually activated by the Chinese government to exert political influence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018023.jpg
This document is a reprint of a 2015 article from The American Lawyer featuring an interview with Alan Dershowitz. In the interview, Dershowitz defends his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, explaining he was introduced by Lady de Rothschild and that Epstein was a major donor to Harvard ($50 million). The text outlines the legal context, including the 2008 plea deal and lawsuits filed by lawyers Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell alleging Dershowitz's involvement in sexual misconduct.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024885.jpg
A Cowen 'Collaborative Insights' financial research report dated February 25, 2019, authored by Chen. The document analyzes the market entry of Cannabidiol (CBD) into mass retail, predicting that the beauty sector (Luxury and Prestige) will adopt it before broadline retailers like Walmart or Target. It details specific moves by Barneys, Neiman Marcus, DSW, and Sephora. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024885, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, likely incidental to a larger financial investigation as no specific Epstein-related individuals are mentioned in the text.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024823.jpg
This document is page 7 of a financial research report titled 'Cowen's Collective View of CBD,' dated February 25, 2019. It outlines the anticipated growth of the U.S. CBD market to $16 billion by 2025 and lists various analysts covering specific sectors such as consumer products, pharmacy, and regulation. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was likely produced as part of a congressional investigation, possibly related to banking records, though the text itself contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024822.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a 'Cowen Collaborative Insights' research report dated February 25, 2019, focusing on the CBD and Cannabis market. The report covers various sectors including consumer products, healthcare, and global landscapes, with sections attributed to specific analysts (e.g., Azer, Nadeau, Schenkel). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024822' Bates stamp, indicating it is part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to investigations into financial records.
Re: Need you to reconstruct 292 data...
Attached Epstein 292 forms from 7/7-2019 to 8/10/2019. Notes Epstein moved in/out of SHU 3 times.
Interview
Dershowitz tracked down Chen to tell his side of the story regarding Epstein allegations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity