Julian
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Trial of Jane, where she was determined to be underage. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00022688.tif
This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding, likely a deposition, involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Todd Blanche, and David Markus. The discussion covers Maxwell's recollections of individuals from a past trial, Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connections to the FBI and other intelligence agencies, his business dealings, and his social connections, including meetings with the Royal Family and high society figures like Rosa Monckton, Princess Diana's best friend.
DOJ-OGR-00022628.tif
This document is an index or glossary, listing various words and names along with corresponding page numbers where they appear. It includes names like Joe, John, Johnson, James, Jane, Jason, Jean-Luc, Jeffrey, Jerry, Jimmy, Julian, Kennedy, Kenny, Kerry, Klein, and Kong, suggesting it's an index for a larger document like a testimony transcript or report. The footer indicates 'DOJ-OGR-00022628' and 'MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES'.
DOJ-OGR-00022518.tif
This document is a page from a transcript or deposition, identified as Page 126. It features an exchange between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell regarding Jeffrey Epstein's potential communication with or role as a source for the FBI, which Maxwell denies knowledge of, speculating Epstein would have either bragged or casually mentioned it. The document also briefly mentions an underage individual named Jane who was seen in Palm Beach with her mother.
DOJ-OGR-00010425.jpg
This legal document, part of a court case, argues against the application of the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines for a defendant whose criminal conduct is alleged to have ended 'in or about 2004'. The filing contends that applying the later, harsher guidelines would be an ex post facto violation, as the jury never made a specific factual finding that the conduct continued past the 2004 Guidelines' effective date. It further argues that having the court, rather than the jury, determine the offense end date would violate the defendant's (Ms. Maxwell's) Sixth Amendment rights.
DOJ-OGR-00010424.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell must be sentenced under the 2003 Guidelines rather than the harsher 2004 Guidelines. It asserts that applying the 2004 Guidelines would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause unless a jury, not the judge, found that her criminal conduct continued past November 1, 2004. Since the jury made no such finding, the court is bound to use the earlier guidelines.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity