Parker
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-02 | N/A | Bail denied in US v. Parker | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 1990-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Parker. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014872.jpg
This document appears to be page 22 of a legal filing (likely an opinion or government brief) dated December 2, 2024, related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that there was no prejudicial variance between the evidence presented at trial and the original indictment, citing various legal precedents (Parker, Salmonese, Dove) to support the validity of the conviction under New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00001000.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell based on the case number) dated June 15, 2020. It provides a string citation of legal precedents from the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) where judges denied pre-trial bail to defendants during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the defendants citing various health conditions like asthma and diabetes. The text argues that health risks alone have not been sufficient grounds for release in recent comparable cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000023.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a court filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses the legal arguments concerning the defendant, Maxwell. The court concludes that it is not uncertain what conduct Maxwell was convicted for and that the evidence presented at trial did not prejudicially vary from the indictment. The text cites several legal precedents to define the high standards a defendant must meet to prove a prejudicial variance that would warrant a reversal of the conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00021014.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the Defendant and the Court regarding how to respond to a deliberating jury's note. The Defendant's initial proposed responses were deemed erroneous, and she later conceded a point about a return flight's potential connection to illegal sexual activity. The document outlines the Defendant's attempts to influence the jury's understanding through specific instructions and supplemental proposals.
DOJ-OGR-00021899.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a larger filing, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to define the high standard for proving such a variance, asserting that the defendant was not misled and their rights were not violated. The document concludes that, similar to a previous argument about constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts outside the scope of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021869.jpg
This page is from a legal document (likely an appellate brief or opinion) stamped September 17, 2024, discussing the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that there was no prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial, asserting that Maxwell was properly convicted of conduct charged by the grand jury. It cites several Second Circuit precedents to support the standard for legal variance and prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00021816.jpg
This legal document, page 22 of a filing dated September 17, 2024, argues against the claim that evidence presented at trial prejudicially varied from the indictment against a defendant named Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (including Dove, Salmonese, and Parker) to establish the high standard required to prove such a variance and resulting prejudice. The document concludes that the evidence at trial did not prove facts different from those in the indictment, thereby refuting the defendant's claim.
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
DOJ-OGR-00010397.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, details a dispute during a trial over how to respond to a note from a deliberating jury. The Defendant proposed several responses, which the Court deemed legally erroneous, including a simple 'no' and later a request to direct the jury to specific lines of an instruction. The core issue revolves around the Defendant's argument concerning the purpose of a return flight in relation to illegal activity and the Court's discretion in guiding the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00010269.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists various legal precedents (cases) and statutes that are cited in the main body of the legal document. The cited authorities primarily consist of federal cases, many from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and federal and New York state statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The filing refutes the government's arguments concerning 'finality' and the 'disfavor' of new trial motions. It asserts that the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated, citing legal precedents that establish the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring the conviction to be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018695.jpg
This document appears to be a page of endnotes or references, likely from a larger report, article, or book draft. It contains hyperlinks to external articles and blog posts organized under headers regarding 'Polyamory' and 'Sex Work' (specifically focusing on 'Sugar Baby' relationships and the website SeekingArrangement). The latest dates in the URLs are from 2011. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018695.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020578.jpg
This document is page 119 of a House Oversight Committee report (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020578), specifically Section 7. It consists entirely of endnotes/bibliography citations from 2016-2018 (and one from 1993) focused on US-China relations, corporate bowing to Chinese censorship (Facebook, Apple, Marriott), and technology transfer concerns (Google, Tsinghua University). There is no mention of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their specific network in this document; it appears to be part of a broader legislative inquiry into foreign influence or trade.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity