Armstrong
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bob Luskin
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 0000-03-24 | N/A | Ruling in 'Armstrong' on donee liability; guidance on converting NIM-CRUTs to CRUTs (Notice 99-31... | United States | View |
025.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the derivative litigation against JP Morgan Chase & Co. It outlines arguments regarding pleading standards, demand futility, and failure to state claims against the defendants, including specific points related to JPMorgan's termination of Epstein as a client and the oversight of internal controls by the board of directors. The document includes a table of authorities citing numerous legal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00022096.jpg
This is the concluding page of a legal document filed on April 24, 2020, by the office of United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman. The document argues that the defendant Thomas's motion to compel discovery for a selective prosecution defense should be denied because the defendant failed to meet the required 'rigorous standard'. The filing cites several legal precedents to support the argument that courts routinely prevent defendants from questioning the government's motives for prosecution at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00022093.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from April 24, 2020, discussing a motion by an individual named Thomas. The court denies Thomas's request for discovery related to his claim of selective or discriminatory prosecution, finding he has not met the high burden of proof required. The court dismisses Thomas's comparison to a 2005/2006 incident involving other officers, stating it is not relevant because Thomas is charged with making false statements, not with failing to conduct counts.
DOJ-OGR-00022092.jpg
This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.
DOJ-OGR-00022091.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 35, filed 04/24/20) in the case against Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein case). The prosecution argues that Thomas is not entitled to draft OIG reports under Rule 16 or Brady obligations. Furthermore, the text argues Thomas has failed to meet the burden of proof required to demand discovery to support a 'selective prosecution' claim, specifically failing to prove discriminatory intent or effect regarding his charges relative to rampant conduct within the Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00022081.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Document 35) from case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It contains the Government's legal argument opposing discovery requests made by the defendant, Thomas (likely Michael Thomas, a guard involved in the Epstein jail case). The Government argues that Thomas's requests are irrelevant to the charges and are instead an attempt to 'garner sympathy' and argue 'jury nullification,' citing various legal precedents to support the exclusion of such evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00022077.jpg
This legal document is a section of a government filing arguing against a defendant's (Thomas) request for certain records. The government contends that the records—related to BOP staffing, policies, and other employees—are not 'material' to preparing a legal defense under Rule 16. Instead, the government asserts Thomas seeks these records for the impermissible purpose of encouraging jury nullification by arguing that poor conditions at the BOP 'led' to his alleged criminal conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017005.jpg
This document is a page containing six scientific statistical graphs (labeled A through F) likely extracted from a research paper regarding 'culturomics' or the frequency of words/names in media over time. It tracks the frequency of mentions for various historical figures (such as Jimmy Carter, Marilyn Monroe, and Neil Armstrong) and professions. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017005, indicating it is an exhibit in a House Oversight Committee investigation, likely included as an attachment to other correspondence or as background material.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013593.jpg
This document is page 93 of a memoir or manuscript (likely by Arnold J. Mandell based on biographical details provided in the text) bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. The text explores the intersection of chemical/drug-induced experiences and religious grace, referencing figures like Martin Marty and E.O. Wilson. It then transitions to a personal narrative where the author describes being a 30-year-old professor at UCLA living in Brentwood when he was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive testicular cancer (choriocarcinoma) with a low survival prognosis.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022342.jpg
This document is a page from a table of contents for a 2013 publication called 'Tax Topics', identified by the Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022342. It lists significant US tax-related events, court cases, and IRS rulings from January to September 2000, covering topics like estate tax, inheritance tax, and tax law interpretations. Although the user prompt described it as 'Epstein-related', the document itself contains no mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, his known associates, or related activities.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity