Wilkerson
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | Legal decision | Decision in the case United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 2004). | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Court decision | The court decided the case of United States v. Wilkerson, 361 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 2004). | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021830.jpg
This document is a legal filing (Case 22-1426) arguing for an en banc review of a panel decision. The core argument is that the precedent set by United States v. Annabi, which limits a plea agreement's scope to a single U.S. Attorney's office by default, conflicts with the broader, long-standing legal principle that plea agreements should be construed strictly against the government. The filing cites several other cases to demonstrate this tension with established circuit and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
DOJ-OGR-00021829.jpg
This document is page 'iv' of a legal filing, specifically Document 117 in Case 22-1426, dated November 1, 2024. It serves as a Table of Authorities, listing various court cases and statutes that are cited within the main body of the document. The citations include references to federal court decisions from various circuits and the Supreme Court, along with federal statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
This page of a legal document argues against a critique by Maxwell of the 'Annabi' rule. The author contends the rule is sound, prevents defendants from receiving unintended immunity, and is supported by the Justice Manual's policy on multi-district agreements. The document concludes that the court is bound by this rule as it is an established precedent that has not been overturned.
DOJ-OGR-00021659.jpg
This document is page 'xi' of a legal filing, specifically Document 79 in Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and U.S. Code statutes that are cited within the larger document, along with the corresponding page numbers for each reference.
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022305.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, discussing a rule by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the statute of limitations for unfair labor practice claims. The footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022305' suggests it was cataloged as an exhibit for a congressional committee. The content of the document itself is purely about U.S. labor law and contains no information, names, or events related to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity