2d Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001173.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court's analysis distinguishing the current defendant's case from several cited legal precedents regarding pre-trial detention. The court contrasts cases where defendants were released (Khashoggi, Bodmer) with cases where they were detained (Boustani, Ho, Epstein), focusing on factors that justify detention such as flight risk, substantial financial resources, dual citizenship, and ties to foreign countries without extradition treaties like Brazil.
DOJ-OGR-00001171.jpg
This legal document argues for the continued detention of a defendant, asserting she is a significant flight risk due to her financial means, foreign ties, and willingness to hide. The author dismisses proposed bail conditions like a $1 million bond from a security company and GPS monitoring as insufficient, citing several legal precedents (U.S. v. Banki, Zarger, and Benatar) where similar measures were deemed inadequate for high-risk defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
This legal document outlines the statutory framework for pretrial detention in cases involving minor victims, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. It details the defendant's burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption and clarifies that the government retains the ultimate burden of proof. The document also specifies the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened, primarily requiring new, material information that was previously unknown to the moving party.
DOJ-OGR-00001089.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (dated April 1, 2021) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is addressing a defense argument for release, distinguishing Maxwell's case from 'United States v. Friedman.' The judge notes that while Maxwell stayed in contact with the government, she did not provide her whereabouts and the circumstances of her arrest suggest she may have been hiding, driven by a realization of the severity of the charges and potential sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00000974.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing prior court decisions where defendants who knew of impending charges did not flee. It emphasizes that the government had no evidence of Ms. Maxwell planning to leave the country and arrested her without warning before a holiday. The document further contends that Ms. Maxwell's actions to avoid public scrutiny after Epstein's arrest do not indicate an intent to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00000971.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, has successfully rebutted the legal presumption that she is a flight risk. It asserts that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving that no set of bail conditions could reasonably ensure her appearance in court. The document cites several legal precedents to support its claim that the Court should order Ms. Maxwell's release under her proposed conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00000960.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page iii) from a legal filing (Document 18) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including 'United States v. Epstein' (2019) and several other cases regarding bail and detention, referencing 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
DOJ-OGR-00000927.jpg
This document appears to be page 15 (internal numbering) of a legal brief filed on April 1, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). The text presents legal arguments against pre-trial detention, citing precedents such as *United States v. Stephens* and *United States v. Weigand* to argue that the COVID-19 pandemic creates obstacles to defense preparation that justify release. It specifically references a case where a 'wealthy defendant' deemed a flight risk was released due to the pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00000925.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law dated April 1, 2021, in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents like United States v. Horton and United States v. Shakur. It then begins an argument that Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i) because the 'horrific conditions' of her 'de facto solitary confinement' prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000848.jpg
This document is a docket sheet page from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from July 27 to July 30, 2020. It details a dispute over a protective order, specifically regarding Maxwell's ability to publicly name alleged victims who have previously spoken publicly about her or Jeffrey Epstein. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order siding with the Government, restricting Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims and witnesses to protect their privacy during the criminal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000794.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Document 32) dated July 18, 2019, regarding the detention of Jeffrey Epstein. It details testimony from victim Courtney Wild, who requested Epstein remain in detention for public safety, and discusses the court's concern that Epstein poses an uncontrollable threat to young girls. The text contrasts the prosecution/court's view of Epstein's 'addictive sexual nature' with Defense Counsel's arguments that Epstein was disciplined and not an 'out-of-control rapist.'
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant, Mr. Epstein. It establishes that rules of evidence are relaxed in bail hearings, giving courts wide discretion, and cites legal precedent that in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a presumption for remand. The document states that the burden is on Mr. Epstein to provide evidence that he is not a danger or flight risk, while the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
DOJ-OGR-00000750.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 29, 2025, argues for the disclosure of grand jury materials. It analyzes legal precedents, noting that while the Government may oppose disclosure, factors like public interest can be overriding. The document states that Defendant Epstein is deceased and cannot assert a position, while Defendant Maxwell intends to respond, and argues that the significant public interest in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell justifies disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00000741.jpg
This is a court order from the Southern District of New York dated July 25, 2025, presided over by Judge Richard M. Berman in the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The order denies a motion to intervene submitted via letter by MSW Media, Inc., citing legal precedents including United States v. Aref and United States v. Saipov, though the court notes it will consider the views expressed in the letter.
DOJ-OGR-00000637.jpg
This document is a nolle prosequi filed on August 29, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The filing formally states the intention of the prosecution (United States of America) to abandon the criminal case (19 Cr. 490) against Jeffrey Epstein. The reason provided is Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, which, under the rule of abatement, requires the dismissal of the indictment before a final judgment is reached.
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the Government in the criminal case against Mr. Epstein, filed on July 18, 2019. It argues that the standard rules of evidence do not apply to bail hearings and that for the specific charges involving sexual victimization of a minor, there is a legal presumption in favor of pretrial detention. The document states that while Mr. Epstein can rebut this presumption, the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he is a danger.
DOJ-OGR-00000479.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 8 of 33 from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on July 18, 2019. It outlines the legal standards for a court to order a defendant's detention based on two separate grounds: dangerousness to the community and risk of flight. The text cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Bail Reform Act to support its arguments regarding evidence standards and the factors a court must consider.
DOJ-OGR-00000341.jpg
This page from a government filing (July 12, 2019) argues before Judge Berman that a previous plea agreement in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not bind other districts or the broader 'United States' government. It further asserts that the defendant (Epstein) was the 'leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise' rather than a mere consumer, highlighting his role in recruiting, funding, and organizing the scheme across two states.
DOJ-OGR-00000338.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a prosecution filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's wealth should not permit him to create a private, guard-monitored home confinement, citing legal precedent. It further argues the defendant poses an ongoing danger to the community, referencing a prior conviction for a sex crime with a minor and the discovery of a large collection of sexually suggestive photographs of underage females at his residence.
DOJ-OGR-00000285.jpg
This document is page 12 of a defense filing arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. The defense argues that Epstein's 'tier-one' sex offender status in the U.S. Virgin Islands indicates low risk, and cites legal precedents (Sabhnani, Hansen) where wealthy defendants with foreign ties were granted bail. A significant footnote asserts Epstein is solely a U.S. citizen, his only foreign residence is in France (which has an extradition treaty), and the majority of his assets are in the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00000022.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' regarding the indictment, specifically analyzing 'Jane's testimony' and a 'jury note' related to Count Four. The appellate court agrees with the District Court's handling of the jury instructions and determines that the core of criminality was properly maintained.
DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426), bearing a DOJ stamp, dated September 17, 2024. It presents a legal argument that the 2003 PROTECT Act amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse offenses during the life of the child, applies retroactively. The text specifically concludes that this amendment applies to 'Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.'
DOJ-OGR-00021096.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was intended to have a broad scope, providing global immunity to Epstein and his co-conspirators beyond a specific district. It cites a 2007 email from prosecutor Villafana to defense attorney Lefkowitz, explicitly stating a preference not to highlight other crimes and other chargeable persons to the judge.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity