Nixon
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Mao
|
Diplomatic |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1974-01-01 | Legal decision | Decision in the case United States v. Nixon, establishing a test for subpoenas. | N/A | View |
| 1974-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Nixon. | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1973-01-01 | N/A | ME War (Yom Kippur War) | Middle East | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020671.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the Southern District of New York for the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 28, 2023, but detailing events from August 2021. The entries describe several orders by Judge Alison J. Nathan, including the denial of Maxwell's motion for subpoenas and instructions on sealing documents. The docket also records letters filed by both the defense, concerning interference with attorney-client communications at the MDC, and the prosecution (USA), regarding the identification of co-conspirators, along with the judge's orders for the parties to confer on these issues.
DOJ-OGR-00020649.jpg
This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 24, 2021. It details a procedural order (Entry 172) regarding Maxwell's attempt to subpoena a law firm representing her alleged victims for confidential information, setting a schedule for objections and redactions. Additionally, it records Maxwell's filing of a Notice of Appeal (Entry 173) regarding a separate order, along with the associated fee and transmission of records to the US Court of Appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00002205.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 23, 2020. The order directs the defendant to file redacted documents and exhibits by the end of that day, citing legal precedents that balance the presumption of public access with the need to protect third-party privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00001971.jpg
This document is a court order dated December 14, 2020, issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order directs the Defendant to docket redacted documents and exhibits, affirming that the redactions are appropriately tailored to protect individual privacy interests. The Court's decision is based on balancing competing considerations against the common law presumption of access, citing legal precedents like *United States v. Amodeo* and *Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*.
DOJ-OGR-00019787.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 24, 2021, detailing court filings from December 10 to December 18, 2020. The entries primarily concern the filing of a conference transcript, Maxwell's renewed application for bail, and the court's orders regarding the redaction of sensitive information from these filings. The court, citing precedents like Lugosch and Amodeo, granted Maxwell's proposed redactions to protect the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the bail application materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
This document is a docket summary from a legal case involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It details a series of court filings and orders from December 2020 concerning Maxwell's renewed motion for bail and the redaction of related documents. The court applies a three-part test from the Second Circuit case *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga* to approve proposed redactions from both the defense and the government, ultimately culminating in a December 28, 2020 order denying Maxwell's motion for release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00019709.jpg
This document is a docket sheet from a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It logs court activities from December 10 to December 18, 2020, including the filing of a conference transcript, orders regarding Maxwell's renewed application for bail, and the court's decision to allow redactions based on established legal tests. The entries also note the filing of a letter and memorandum by Maxwell's counsel and a notice of appearance by an attorney for the USA.
DOJ-OGR-00002954.jpg
This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's request (Request 11) for a subpoena to obtain original photographs of an alleged victim, ruling that the Government has already agreed to provide the photos in FBI possession, and that Maxwell failed to establish the relevance of the remaining photos beyond impeachment purposes, which does not satisfy Rule 17(c) requirements. The document concludes by formally denying the Defendant's motion.
DOJ-OGR-00004732.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defense's motion for early disclosure of impeachment material related to a witness, Minor Victim-4. The Government contends that Minor Victim-4's prior consistent statement from a deposition, made over a decade before the defendant's 2020 indictment, confirms the defendant's role in scheduling her massages with Epstein, thereby undermining the defense's claim of recent fabrication. The Government affirms its intent to provide this material ten days before trial, in line with customary practice.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00002892.jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a filing from April 5, 2021, discusses the legal standard for obtaining documents via a subpoena under Rule 17(c). It heavily references the precedent set in 'United States v. Nixon', emphasizing that a request for documents must be made in good faith, be specific, and not constitute a general 'fishing expedition'. The document argues that courts require a stringent showing that the requested materials are relevant, admissible, and specifically identified, rather than just potentially useful to a case.
DOJ-OGR-00002896.jpg
This legal document, page 7 of a court filing from April 5, 2021, analyzes Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) concerning ex parte applications for pretrial subpoenas. It contrasts the majority view, which generally disfavors such applications unless for trial use, with specific court precedents that permit them to protect sensitive information like trial strategy. The text cites several cases, including Weisman, Fox, and Reyes, to illustrate the legal arguments and differing practices among court districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002800.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 24, 2021, is a court order outlining the procedure for a law firm representing alleged victims to object to a proposed subpoena. The Court acknowledges receipt of a letter from the firm on March 19, 2021, and sets a deadline of March 26, 2021, for the firm to formally file its objections. The order mandates that the law firm must first confer with defense counsel to potentially narrow the issues and discuss redactions, citing legal precedents for these procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00002879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing arguing that a subpoena issued by a defendant should be quashed. The filing contends that the subpoena fails to meet the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c), as established in the case United States v. Nixon, because it is an overly broad "fishing expedition" seeking "all communications" with various individuals from the law firm Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016486.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page ii) from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion. It lists various legal precedents (case law) primarily focused on media, public access to court records, and sealing orders (e.g., NY Times v. US, Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court). Crucially, it cites 'People v. Epstein' (2011) as a key authority used 'passim' (throughout) the main document, suggesting the filing relates to the legal proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein, possibly regarding the unsealing of records. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017672.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various case precedents (such as State v. Percy and Brady v. Maryland) to argue that criminal defendants do not have a general constitutional right to discovery, particularly regarding the private mental health records of victims. The text emphasizes that 'mere hope' of finding favorable evidence is insufficient for a subpoena.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017419.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a House Oversight report detailing political divisions within a legal 'guild' (likely the National Lawyers Guild) during the 1970s regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. It describes a delegation trip organized by Abdeen Jabara and funded by the PLO, which produced a report highly critical of Israel while allegedly ignoring PLO terrorism. The text also references controversial statements made by Daniel Berrigan and the resulting schism among left-wing lawyers, including William Kunstler.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026844.jpg
This document is a page from a geopolitical essay or book analyzing the rise of China and its relationship with the West, specifically the United States. It discusses economic integration, potential military tensions in the South China Sea, and cultural shifts including the adoption of Western classical music. The document bears a House Oversight Committee stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional investigation file.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015376.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a memoir or narrative account (possibly by Paul Krassner, given the context of the anecdote) marked with a House Oversight stamp. It details conversations with Groucho Marx regarding drug use (LSD and marijuana), the film 'Skidoo', and a controversial 1971 interview where Groucho joked about President Nixon's assassination. The text contrasts Groucho's lack of arrest with the indictment of Black Panther David Hilliard.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025330.jpg
This document is a piece of correspondence (likely an email or letter) from a filmmaker to counterculture figure Paul Krassner. The author explains creative choices made in a film script that features Krassner as a character, specifically addressing scenes involving LSD and Squeaky Fromme. The author draws parallels between the political climate of the Nixon era and the Trump era, discusses Krassner's legacy with 'The Realist,' and expresses a desire not to disrespect that legacy. *Note: While the prompt identifies this as 'Epstein-related,' the text contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein; it appears to be part of a larger document dump (House Oversight).*
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025227.jpg
This document is a market commentary by Michael Cembalest, Chief Investment Officer at J.P. Morgan, discussing the state of financial markets, economic challenges, and investment strategies in 2011. It highlights issues like European sovereign risk, weak labor compensation, political divides, and inflation risks, emphasizing the importance of realistic market assessment and identifying opportunities amid economic difficulties, while also providing disclaimers about the nature of the commentary and J.P. Morgan's services.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030240.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a forwarded political chain email (indicated by the '>' characters) included in House Oversight Committee records (ID: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030240). The text presents a list of U.S. Presidents and the percentage of their cabinet members who had private sector experience, culminating in a criticism of President Obama for having only 8% of his cabinet with such experience. The email argues this lack of business background explains the administration's alleged incompetence.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity