Relationship Details

United States Legal representative Morgan

Connected Entities

Entity A
United States
Type: location
Mentions: 4439
Also known as: United States of America, USVI (United States Virgin Islands), United States Virgin Islands (USVI), Vermont, United States, United States (US), United States (U.S.), United States Capitol, United States / US, United States (implied by US Intelligence/Government), America / US / United States, United States / US / American, United States (America), United States (American), America / U.S. / United States, United States / America / U.S., United States/America, Palm Beach County, United States, The States / United States, United States (implied by 'US narrative'), United States / The States, United States / America, Carlucci Auditorium, United States Institute of Peace, United States District Courthouse, United States (implied by 'American'), continental United States, United States (implied by U.S. venture capital benchmarks), USA / United States / America, Office of the United States Attorney, USA - UNITED STATES, Zip 11968 (United States)
Entity B
Morgan
Type: organization
Mentions: 83
Also known as: JP Morgan bank, Haddon, Morgan, & Foreman, P.C., HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, JPMorgan Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPMS), Morgan Stanley, Inc., Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI), J.P. Morgan Cazenove, Morgan Hotel, JPM / jpm morgan, Morgan Library, J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM), J.P. Morgan Securities plc, Kinder Morgan Inc, Briggs and Morgan, Morgan Lewis, Morgan State University, JPMorgan Short Term Bond Fund II, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.

Evidence

Opposing parties in the legal case United States v. Morgan.

Parties in the legal case 'United States v. Morgan'.

Source Documents (2)

DOJ-OGR-00002995.jpg

Unknown type • 778 KB
View

This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and statutes of limitations. The author argues that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to retroactively extend a limitations period for prosecutions that are not yet time-barred, citing numerous legal precedents like Falter v. United States and Stogner v. California. The document concludes that applying Section 3283 retroactively in this case is lawful and dismisses the defendant's contrary assertion.

DOJ-OGR-00002667.jpg

Legal document • 705 KB
View

This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 4, 2021, which argues for a specific interpretation of the statutory phrase "offense involving." It cites several court precedents, including cases like Kawashima v. Holder and United States v. Morgan, to support the position that this phrase requires looking at the essential elements of the crime itself, not merely the surrounding circumstances. The D.C. Circuit's analysis of a venue statute is used as a key example to illustrate that for an offense to 'involve' an activity like interstate transportation, that activity must be a formal element of the offense.

Mutual Connections

Entities connected to both United States and Morgan

MAXWELL (person)

United States's Other Relationships

Legal representative GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Strength: 32/10 View
Legal representative Jeffrey Epstein
Strength: 13/10 View
Legal representative Epstein
Strength: 13/10 View
Legal representative MAXWELL
Strength: 12/10 View
Adversarial Iran
Strength: 10/10 View

Morgan's Other Relationships

Professional MAXWELL
Strength: 5/10 View
Legal representative U.S.
Strength: 5/10 View
Client Financial Trust Company, Inc.
Strength: 5/10 View
Family Andrew Kelson
Strength: 1/10 View
Acquaintance dixiedelight5
Strength: 1/10 View

Relationship Metadata

Type
Legal representative
Relationship Strength
6/10
Medium strength relationship
Source Documents
2
Extracted
2025-11-20 15:36
Last Updated
2025-11-20 16:44

Entity Network Stats

United States 532 relationships
Morgan 6 relationships
Mutual connections 1

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship