Lewis
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
County of Sacramento
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998-01-01 | Legal decision | The case of County of Sacramento v. Lewis was decided. | U.S. Supreme Court | 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.
EFTA00013756.pdf
This document contains an email chain from November 2007 sent by Joyce Williams, assistant to Judge Edward B. Davis at Akerman Senterfitt. The emails inform the recipients (addressed as Messrs. Lewis and a redacted name) that Judge Davis has selected attorneys Aaron Podhurst and Robert Josefsberg to handle the 'Epstein' matter and that they have agreed to do so.
DOJ-OGR-00002281.jpg
This document is page 'ii' (3 of 19) of a legal filing from January 25, 2021, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' section listing various legal precedents (cases) cited in the main document, including United States v. Halper and United States v. Burke. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00002281'.
DOJ-OGR-00002281(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities page (Page 3 of 19) from a court filing dated January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists twenty-one legal precedents (cases) cited in the brief, primarily from the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, covering dates from 1964 to 2011. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002281.
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-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-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
DOJ-OGR-00021226.jpg
This document is a page from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications between federal prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel) regarding the initial prosecution memorandum for the Jeffrey Epstein case. It highlights the prosecutors' concerns about Epstein's high-profile defense team, the belief that state prosecutors intentionally sabotaged the case in the grand jury, and strategic discussions about selecting 'clean' victims to ensure a successful indictment. The document also notes Acosta's lack of recollection regarding reading the specific prosecution memo, citing his reliance on senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00003228.jpg
This document contains an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing internal communications regarding the initial federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It highlights emails from prosecutor Lourie to Menchel discussing a 50-page prosecution memo, the strategy to use only 'clean victims' (those without impeachment baggage), and the assertion that the State Attorney's Office intentionally sabotaged their own grand jury case. The document also covers OPR interviews where Menchel recalls this as his introduction to the case, and then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta admits he likely did not read the prosecution memo, relying instead on his senior staff.
DOJ-OGR-00003225.jpg
This legal document details communications in late 2006 and early 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt, and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office. The defense sought a meeting to "make a pitch," leading to an internal disagreement between prosecutors Villafaña, who opposed the meeting without first receiving documents, and Lourie, who granted the meeting believing it was strategically valuable to hear the defense's theories. Ultimately, a meeting was scheduled for February 1, 2007, despite Villafaña's objections and her belief that the defense would not provide the requested evidence and would only use the meeting to discredit victims.
DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the standard for proving a Fifth Amendment due process violation is extremely high, requiring government conduct that is so egregious it "shocks the conscience." The text cites numerous legal precedents, including cases like Rochin, to illustrate that such violations typically involve severe invasions of individual rights and bodily integrity, and notes the defendant bears a "very heavy" burden of proof.
DOJ-OGR-00002941.jpg
This document is page 7 of 239 (internally numbered 'vi') from a legal filing, Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of cases, listing legal precedents with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The footer includes a Department of Justice document identifier, DOJ-OGR-00002941.
DOJ-OGR-00033049.jpg
A transcript page from a legal proceeding recording a heated exchange between attorneys Mr. Leopold and Mr. Tein. Leopold accuses Tein of repetitive questioning, while Tein asks Leopold to stop yelling. The argument escalates when Leopold mistakenly calls Tein 'Lewis,' leading to an insult from Leopold suggesting Tein made no impression during a previous three-day evidentiary hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00032997.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript dated July 26, 2017, in which attorney Mr. Tein questions an unnamed witness. The questioning centers on the witness's awareness of a fifty-million-dollar lawsuit filed against Jeffrey Epstein by their attorney, Mr. Leopold. Mr. Leopold repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, instructing his client not to reveal any information learned through their privileged attorney-client conversations.
DOJ-OGR-00033133.jpg
This document is page 145 of an index from a legal transcript produced by Consor & Associates on July 26, 2017. The index lists keywords alphabetically from 'lawyer' to 'lying' with corresponding page and line numbers from the transcript. It references individuals named Leopold, Lewis, and Licata, and locations including Loxahatchee.
DOJ-OGR-00005893.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 397-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. It contains an excerpt from the 'Journal of Interpersonal Violence' discussing the historical definitions and psychological theories surrounding 'seduction,' 'grooming,' and 'rape' in the context of child sexual abuse. The text cites various psychoanalytic and psychological authors from the mid-20th century to contrast older definitions of seduction with the modern understanding of grooming as a method to facilitate sexual offenses.
Epstein investigation
Lewis's call with Villafaña where Sloman's participation led the defense to believe the matter was 'elevated'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity