Martinez
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
McAleenan
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-01 | N/A | Multiple legal visits for Jeffrey Epstein. | MCC New York | View |
| 2017-12-18 | Court order | An order was issued in the Martinez case. | Eastern District of New York | View |
EFTA00034077.pdf
These documents are the Daily Lieutenant's Logs from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York for July 22 and July 24, 2019. They detail the status of Jeffrey Epstein (Inmate #76318-054), noting his placement on Suicide Watch with an inmate companion and his subsequent removal to 'Psych obs' on July 24 at 11:10 AM. The logs also repeatedly note critical infrastructure failures, specifically that the fire alarm and sprinkler systems were inoperable/nonoperational requiring a 'Fire Watch,' and that control panels for main doors were inoperative.
DOJ-OGR-00015295.jpg
This document is a financial transaction report from Shoppers Travel, Inc., dated April 27, 2016, detailing invoices issued between September 2002 and February 2003. The report lists numerous individuals, including Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen, as recipients of invoices for travel services. Several entries have been redacted by the Department of Justice (DOJ), indicating the document is part of a legal or investigative file.
DOJ-OGR-00002286.jpg
This document is Page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the 'joinder' (combining) and 'severance' (separating) of criminal charges, citing various precedents to argue that offenses separated by time, location, or circumstance should not be tried together. It specifically addresses the standards for joining perjury or false statement counts with substantive crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00002286(1).jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 120) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2021. The text presents legal arguments and case citations regarding the severance of charges and 'joinder,' specifically arguing that perjury counts should not be joined with substantive crimes if they are not sufficiently connected physically, temporally, or transactionally. The document cites precedents such as *United States v. Rivera*, *Randazzo*, and *Potamitis* to support the argument that unrelated offenses should be tried separately.
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-00010558.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the prosecution arguing against the defendant's motions regarding sentencing. The prosecution asserts that the 2004 Sentencing Manual should apply, citing trial testimony that the conspiracy extended past 2004, and refutes the defendant's claim of having left the conspiracy and her association with Epstein in 2002. The document also notes that the government is prepared to present additional evidence, a message book seized by the Palm Beach Police Department, at the sentencing hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00003106.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a defendant's motion. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's false statements, made in a civil deposition, were intended to obstruct a criminal investigation by the FBI and a grand jury, and are therefore connected to the substantive offenses. The argument cites several legal precedents to support the claim that the charges should not be severed.
DOJ-OGR-00003065.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically outlining the applicable law concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It defines and distinguishes between procedural and substantive due process by citing several court cases, including Martinez v. McAleenan and United States v. Salerno. The text highlights the two-step analysis for procedural due process and notes the Supreme Court's reluctance to expand the concept of substantive due process, as stated in Washington v. Glucksberg.
DOJ-OGR-00003014.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the dismissal of an indictment due to pre-indictment delay, citing numerous Second Circuit precedents (such as Cornielle, Alameh, and Delacruz) to establish that a defendant must prove the Government intentionally delayed specifically to gain a 'tactical advantage.'
DOJ-OGR-00004869.jpg
This is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 310-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text presents legal arguments citing various precedents (including Martinez, Carrillo, and Baird) to establish that non-prosecution agreements should be treated as binding contracts similar to plea agreements. This argument is likely being used to support the defense's claim regarding the applicability of the 2007 Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00005402.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, arguing for the use of pseudonyms for testifying victims. It cites several legal precedents from the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, including the cases of Raniere, Martinez, Schulte, and Hernandez, to support the argument that protecting victims from harassment, embarrassment, and encouraging testimony outweighs defense interests, particularly in sensitive cases like sex trafficking and national security.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675). It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Jencks Act and Rule 16, specifically arguing that criminal defendants do not have a right to pre-trial discovery of government witness names (including victims) in order to prevent witness tampering and intimidation. The text cites numerous federal cases to support the argument that witness lists are generally protected from early disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity