Courts
OrganizationRelationship Network
EFTA00014345.pdf
This document is an email chain from August 19, 2019, involving the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Assistant U.S. Attorney's office. The emails discuss and confirm the filing of a 'nolle prosequi' motion in the case U.S. v. Epstein (19 Cr. 490), effectively dismissing the indictment following Jeffrey Epstein's death. The correspondence includes a submission to Judge Berman's chambers, with defense attorneys Martin Weinberg and Michael Miller copied.
DOJ-OGR-00001755.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing dated August 17, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The document discusses the government's ex parte applications dating back to February 2019, Maxwell's arrest on July 2, 2020, and the superseding indictment filed on July 8, 2020, which alleges she facilitated Epstein's abuse of minors and committed perjury in 2016. A footnote details the timeline of discovery materials being transferred to the defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00000658.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg describes the conditions at the MCC and SHU as 'medieval' and 'horrific,' citing vermin and lack of sunlight. He also explicitly states that the defense disputes the conclusions of the medical examiner regarding their client's death.
DOJ-OGR-00002183.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition rights from France and the United Kingdom is not a sufficient guarantee against flight risk. It details how the extradition process in the UK is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to judicial and executive discretion, meaning the defendant could still challenge it. The document concludes by citing legal precedent that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk, thus weighing in favor of detaining the defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019566.jpg
A heavily redacted legal filing from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 17, 2020. The document discusses procedural history, including government applications in 2019, Maxwell's arrest in July 2020, and allegations in the superseding indictment regarding perjury and assisting Jeffrey Epstein. A footnote details the timeline of discovery materials received by the defense in early August 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00010129.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 522, filed April 6, 2012) discussing legal ethics, specifically the standard of knowledge required for an attorney to report fraud or perjury to a tribunal. It cites a case involving an attorney named 'Doe' where discipline was reversed because 'actual knowledge' of perjury is required, not just strong suspicion. The author of this document identifies themselves in a footnote as the expert witness who testified for Doe in the underlying Connecticut disciplinary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (originally 2012, refiled 2022) discussing attorney ethics regarding the reporting of perjury (fraud on the tribunal). It cites a precedent case involving 'Doe,' arguing that an attorney must have actual knowledge, not just strong suspicion, of perjury before a duty to disclose arises. The author of this text notes in a footnote that they served as the expert witness for 'Doe' in a Connecticut disciplinary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00025290.jpg
This document contains a chain of emails from August 12-14, 2019, shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's death. The correspondence involves the transmission of a response letter from MCC Warden Lamine N'Diaye to Judge Richard M. Berman regarding the Epstein case (19 cr 490). Judge Berman acknowledges the receipt and asks court staff to thank the Warden for his prompt response.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017873.jpg
This document is page 808 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, bearing a House Oversight file stamp. It details legal precedents regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically focusing on establishing jurisdiction over state sponsors of terrorism (Libya and Iraq) for acts such as the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and torture in Kuwait. It cites cases including Rein, Daliberti, and Pugh to argue that foreign states and officials, including Muammar Qadhafi, can be sued in the U.S. for terrorist acts aimed at U.S. nationals.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017188.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or book (likely by Alan Dershowitz) produced during a House Oversight investigation (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017188). It recounts a legal argument Dershowitz made before Judges Julian and Aldrich concerning obscenity laws, privacy, and the 'Griswold v. Conn' precedent. Dershowitz argues that personal offense at the conduct of others is not a sufficient constitutional basis for banning that conduct, a position Judge Aldrich ultimately accepted in his decision.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017142.jpg
This document appears to be page 55 of a manuscript or memoir draft by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012. It recounts his experiences as a law clerk in 1962-1963, specifically detailing a case involving a fraudulent lawyer named Morgan and Dershowitz's admiration for the appellate attorney Monroe Freedman. The text highlights a lesson Dershowitz learned from Judge Bazelon regarding the necessity of a solid legal basis for reversing convictions, ending with a parenthetical reference to Bush v. Gore.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015608.jpg
This is page 10 of a legal filing, specifically an objection to a subpoena in a Florida defamation action (likely related to Alan Dershowitz). 'Jane Doe No. 3' is arguing to quash requests for her personal financial information and privileged communications with her legal counsel, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (BSF). The document cites Florida case law regarding attorney-client privilege and references specific discovery requests asking about her media interactions regarding Epstein, Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013395.jpg
Page 2 of a 'Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages' in the case of Edwards vs. Epstein (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). The document argues that Epstein filed previous motions solely to intimidate Edwards and his clients into abandoning their claims. The bulk of the text outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding the standard of proof required to plead punitive damages in Florida, citing various precedents to establish that the burden is lower than that for summary judgment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013315.jpg
Page 12 of a legal filing opposing Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment in a civil case (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). The document argues that Epstein cannot rely on public filings he knows to be untrue while simultaneously invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to refuse answering questions about criminal activity. The filing asserts that his refusal to testify creates 'adverse inferences' that should preclude him from winning a summary judgment or prosecuting an abuse of process claim against Edwards.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity