Federal Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-08-21 | Legal proceeding | The court ordered the government to provide petitioners with a copy of the NPA subject to a prote... | Federal Court | View |
| 2008-07-01 | N/A | A victim filed an emergency petition for enforcement of rights under the CVRA. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Legal event | The Federal Court orders the USAO to disclose the NPA to victims, and the USAO sends a revised vi... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021157.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a Criminal Judgment against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S2 20 CR 330), filed on June 29, 2022. It outlines the 'Standard Conditions of Supervision' for her supervised release, including requirements to report to a probation officer, maintain employment, restrictions on travel and weapons possession, and prohibitions against interacting with known criminals or acting as a confidential informant. The document bears a DOJ Bates stamp indicating it is part of a larger production.
DOJ-OGR-00013201.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, confirming a specific incident where Jeffrey Epstein masturbated in her presence and paid her $300. The testimony also references a legal complaint filed against Epstein in federal court in 2009.
DOJ-OGR-00013194.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning revisits her prior deposition, confirming her trust in her attorneys. It is also established that a complaint she previously filed in federal court was not against a Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008959.jpg
This document is page 35 of a defense motion filed on Feb 11, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for a new trial or acquittal, citing potential testimony from two witnesses, Sally Markham (property manager) and Lynn Fontanilla (housekeeper), who could have rebutted government claims about Maxwell's role as 'lady of the house' and her presence at the 71st Street townhouse. The defense contends that a 'household manual' used as evidence against Maxwell was actually created by an individual known as 'the Countess.'
DOJ-OGR-00019674.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 95 in Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020. It contains a Certificate of Compliance signed by Adam Mueller confirming the document meets word count limitations, and a Certificate of Service signed by Nicole Simmons confirming the filing of an 'Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief under Seal' via the CM/ECF system. The document bears a Department of Justice bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00019674).
DOJ-OGR-00010594.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the defense team (Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that specific individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—do not qualify as 'victims' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) relative to the counts of conviction. The defense contends that because the federal charges specifically required the involvement of minors, and these women were either not minors or their interactions fell outside the indictment timeline, they are not statutory victims entitled to CVRA rights in this specific legal context.
DOJ-OGR-00010368.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 29, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's motions for acquittal (Rule 29) and to vacate convictions based on constructive amendment or prosecutorial delay (Rule 33), citing sufficient evidence and lack of prejudice. However, the Court rules in favor of the Defendant regarding 'multiplicitous' counts, concluding that Counts One, Three, and Five charge the same offense regarding a decade-long unlawful agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010220.jpg
This document contains page 5 of a court transcript from March 11, 2022, filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The transcript records the Court granting 'use immunity' to 'Juror 50' after the juror asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege. The judge explains that Juror 50 must testify truthfully and will not be prosecuted for their testimony unless they commit perjury, after which Juror 50 is called to the witness stand.
DOJ-OGR-00009768.jpg
This document is page 11 of a filled-out juror questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The respondent, identified as Juror ID 50, answers 'No' to questions regarding prior jury service (Questions 18-19), involvement in court cases as a witness/defendant/victim (Question 20), and involvement in government investigations (Question 21). The document bears a Department of Justice footer stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg
This legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP) defends the conduct of attorneys from Brune & Richard regarding a potential conflict with 'Juror Conrad.' The text details events in March and May 2011 where the legal team investigated whether the juror was actually a suspended Bronx lawyer of the same name. The attorneys concluded the two were different people based on discrepancies in addresses, education, and age, and therefore determined they had no ethical duty to disclose their suspicion to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00025222.jpg
This DOJ report page details Jeffrey Epstein's time in BOP custody during July and August 2019, covering his psychological state, complaints about noise and toilets, and the denial of his bail. It documents the unsealing of damaging court records on August 9, 2019, which included book receipts for titles regarding erotic servitude, and notes that Epstein was moved to a single-cell in the SHU following a final unrecorded phone call that same evening. The report also highlights a lack of staff engagement with an email regarding his housing needs.
DOJ-OGR-00005634.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Document 386) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a defense argument seeking to exclude the testimony of an expert witness named Rocchio regarding 'grooming' patterns in sexual abuse cases. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 704, 403, and 404 to argue that such opinions are unreliable, prejudicial, and not based on scientific data.
DOJ-OGR-00005320.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on October 22, 2021, containing instructions to the jury pool. The text outlines strict prohibitions against jurors discussing the case on social media or conducting independent research via Google or news outlets. It also details privacy and safety measures due to the 'high-profile' nature of the case and COVID-19, including the use of juror numbers instead of names and the provision of daily transportation for jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00032995.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript dated July 26, 2017. An unidentified witness, accompanied by their lawyer, Mr. Leopold, is questioned about a criminal prosecution and a related civil lawsuit. The questioner reveals that Mr. Leopold has recently filed a $50 million lawsuit in federal court against Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00005116.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically an excerpt from a subpoena form (AO 89B) filed in a criminal case. It outlines sections of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, detailing the legal requirements for producing documents, serving subpoenas, the geographic scope of service, and the consequences of non-compliance, such as being held in contempt of court. The rules also provide protections for victims when their personal information is sought.
DOJ-OGR-00008665.jpg
This document represents page 127 (labeled 44 internally) of a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines Instruction No. 34 regarding the objects of the conspiracy for Counts One, Three, and Five. Count One alleges conspiracy to entice minors (1994-2004), Count Three alleges conspiracy to transport minors (1994-2004), and Count Five begins to describe conspiracy to commit sex trafficking (2001-2004).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031614.jpg
This document is an email chain from April 28, 2016, culminating in Jeffrey Epstein forwarding a message to journalist Michael Wolff with the comment 'here we go.' The chain originates with a request for comment from Reuters reporter David Ingram to attorney Martin Weinberg regarding a lawsuit filed in California alleging that Epstein and Donald Trump raped a woman (identified in the attachment as Katie Johnson) in 1994. Weinberg alerts Epstein that the story will go to press in several hours.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031612.jpg
This email chain from April 28, 2016, tracks a Reuters press inquiry regarding a lawsuit (Katie Johnson v Trump) alleging that Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump raped a woman in 1994. The inquiry was sent by reporter David Ingram to Martin Weinberg, who forwarded it to Epstein. Epstein then forwarded the chain to Tom Barrack with the comment 'nuts but i thought you guys should know,' attaching the complaint PDF.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031610.jpg
This document is an email chain from April 28, 2016, initiated by Reuters journalist David Ingram to attorney Martin Weinberg, seeking comment on a lawsuit alleging Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump committed rape in 1994. Weinberg forwards this inquiry to Epstein (using the alias jeevacation@gmail.com), who then forwards it to Kathy Ruemmler with the complaint attached. A significant portion of the communication between Weinberg and Epstein is redacted as privileged.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031485.jpg
This document, stamped with a House Oversight Committee identifier, appears to be a news report or press summary regarding the diplomatic tension between the U.S. and Turkey over the extradition of Fethullah Gulen following the 2016 coup attempt. It details a press conference held by Steptoe & Johnson LLP attorneys Reid Weingarten and Michael Miller, who dismissed allegations that Gulen would flee the country and criticized the evidence provided by the Turkish government in previous legal attempts. The text discusses the strategic importance of the Incirlik Air Base and the casualties of the coup attempt.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031477.jpg
This document is an email from Michael Keough dated August 5, 2016, circulating a news report to a group including Steptoe attorneys Reid Weingarten and Michael Miller. The text details a Washington news conference where the attorneys criticized the Turkish government's evidence against cleric Fethullah Gulen, citing a dismissed 2015 Pennsylvania court case that relied on claims of 'coded orders' in sermons and TV scripts. The document highlights the tension between the U.S. and Turkey regarding Gulen's extradition following a coup attempt.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031462.jpg
This document is an email chain from April 28, 2016, originating with a Reuters reporter, David Ingram, contacting attorney Martin Weinberg for comment regarding a lawsuit filed in California. The lawsuit alleged that Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump raped a woman in 1994. The email was forwarded by Weinberg to Epstein, and subsequently by Epstein to Lesley Groff, who responded with concern ('so sorry...'). Portions of the email chain between Weinberg and Epstein are redacted under privilege.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022174.jpg
This document contains pages 276 and 277 from the book 'Filthy Rich' (likely by James Patterson), stamped as House Oversight evidence. It details Virginia Roberts's allegations against Prince Andrew, including her sworn statement that she was instructed by Jeffrey Epstein to 'exceed' expectations and give the Prince whatever he wanted. The text also covers legal maneuvers, such as Buckingham Palace refusing letters, a Florida judge striking allegations from the record as 'lurid details,' and Barry Krischer refusing to comment on Epstein in 2016.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022078.jpg
This document is an excerpt (pages 108-109) from the book 'Filthy Rich' presented as evidence (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022078). It details Jeffrey Epstein's financial strategies in the 1980s, specifically highlighting an oil-drilling deal in 1982 where investor Michael Stroll put in $450,000. When Stroll demanded his money back in 1984, Epstein only returned $10,000 (claiming in court it was for a horse), leading to a federal lawsuit that was eventually settled out of court with secret terms.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity