Wey
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
EFTA00032623.pdf
This document is a New York Law360 newsletter email dated November 21, 2018. It summarizes various legal news stories, including a forgery suit against Greenberg Traurig, a doping settlement involving Vijay Singh, and the sentencing of lawyers John Chambers and Michael Little. The document is likely included in the dataset due to a keyword hit for 'Epstein Becker & Green, PC' (a law firm) in the job listings section on the last page; it does not appear to reference Jeffrey Epstein personally.
DOJ-OGR-00001863.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated November 25, 2020, arguing for the sealing of certain court documents. The filing cites extreme harassment and violent threats against Ms. Maxwell on social media as a reason to protect the identities of sureties. It also mentions a confidential financial report on Ms. Maxwell prepared by Macalvins Limited and discusses legal precedents regarding the presumption of public access to court records.
DOJ-OGR-00003113.jpg
This document is a legal filing from April 16, 2021, arguing that an indictment against a defendant is legally sufficient. It cites several legal precedents, including Russell v. United States and United States v. Pirro, to establish the standards for specificity in indictments. The author contends that the indictment in question meets these standards by laying out all essential elements of the crimes charged and that the defendant has provided no legal authority to suggest otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00003112.jpg
This document is page 178 (Bates DOJ-OGR-00003112) of a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated April 16, 2021. It is a legal memorandum discussing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 and the standards for the sufficiency of an indictment. The text cites various legal precedents (Alfonso, Resendiz-Ponce, Wey, Stringer) to argue that an indictment generally does not need to specify evidentiary details or how an offense was committed, provided it tracks the statutory language and protects against double jeopardy.
DOJ-OGR-00002959.jpg
This document is page xxiv of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations with corresponding page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The majority of the cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and one corporation.
DOJ-OGR-00002895.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 195) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 5, 2021. The Government is arguing that the Court should require notice for all Rule 17(c) subpoenas rather than allowing them to be issued *ex parte* (without notice), citing various legal precedents (Wey, Earls, Skelos, St. Lawrence, Boyle) to support the position that *ex parte* proceedings should only be permitted with a compelling reason. Footnotes clarify the Government's concern regarding financial institutions responding to broad subpoenas for impeachment purposes and state that this request does not apply to subpoenas returnable at trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity