this district
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00026999.pdf
An internal email dated July 7, 2020, likely from the US Attorney (SDNY) to staff. The email celebrates recent high-profile successes, specifically citing the civil settlement with Novartis and the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, while also thanking AUSAs and staff for their dedication during the Covid pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00015063.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed by the Government (Department of Justice) on July 29, 2025 (per header), responding to court orders regarding motions to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government argues for balancing transparency with the obligation to protect victims and cites Second Circuit case law allowing the release of grand jury records under 'special circumstances.' A footnote notes a Circuit split and mentions that Judge Robin L. Rosenberg previously denied a similar request in the Southern District of Florida regarding 2005 and 2007 Epstein records.
DOJ-OGR-00001619.jpg
This document is page 9 of a government filing (Document 22) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 13, 2020. The text argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk, citing her demonstrated skill at living in hiding and her steps to conceal herself after Jeffrey Epstein's indictment. The government contends that her decision to remain in the US previously does not mitigate the risk now that she faces a six-count indictment and the reality of a potential lengthy prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00001617.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges. The Government asserts that the charges are timely under the law, independent of a prior investigation, and that the defendant's claims are baseless. Furthermore, the document argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk due to her international ties, financial resources, and French citizenship, noting that France does not extradite its citizens to the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00001603.jpg
This page from a defense filing (dated July 10, 2020) argues for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. Her legal team contends that the government overstates her potential prison sentence (estimating 10 years rather than decades) and asserts the prosecution is legally flawed due to Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations issues regarding conduct from 1994-1997, and weak evidence based on decades-old testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00001147.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2020, outlines the background of a six-count indictment against an unnamed defendant. The defendant is accused of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to facilitate the sexual abuse of minors, and later committing perjury during a civil deposition to cover up the crimes. The document argues that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and the court should not alter its prior finding on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00001117.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell has addressed the court's concerns about her finances, which were raised at an initial bail hearing. Her defense counsel hired a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, to conduct a thorough five-year financial analysis, and a former IRS Special Agent and Certified Fraud Examiner reviewed and validated this analysis as complete and accurate. The purpose is to demonstrate financial transparency to the court to establish suitable bail conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001076.jpg
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely a prosecutor, argues against the notion that the defendant would have surrendered if asked. The speaker asserts the government arrested the defendant due to a serious flight risk and points to the defense counsel's uncooperative behavior in a separate civil case as further evidence of untrustworthiness. The speaker concludes by noting the lack of a substantive response regarding the defendant's finances.
DOJ-OGR-00000980.jpg
This document is a legal defense filing arguing that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk because her potential prison sentence is likely only 10 years, contrary to the government's claims of "decades." It outlines significant legal challenges the defense intends to raise, including a prior non-prosecution agreement involving Epstein, statute of limitations issues, and the difficulty of prosecuting decades-old conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000805.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court filing (Document 32) from July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein. The text details the Court's finding that Epstein is a 'flight risk' based on a Pretrial Services Report citing his extensive foreign travel, international ties, unexplained assets, and criminal history. It also outlines the seriousness of the charges against him, specifically the alleged sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach involving the facilitation by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00000531.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A representative for the government argues against the defendant's legal claims, stating a non-prosecution agreement is not applicable and that the case will proceed, and urges the court to order the defendant's detention. Following the government's statement, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00000523.jpg
This legal document is a transcript from a court proceeding where the prosecution argues for the detention of a defendant, citing them as a significant flight risk due to vast financial assets, including a net worth over $500 million and a single bank account with over $110 million. The prosecution also states that the evidence against the defendant is already "strong" and is growing stronger daily as more victims and witnesses come forward following a months-long covert investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000493.jpg
This document is page 22 of a court order filed on July 18, 2019, in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. The court finds Epstein to be a flight risk based on factors including extensive foreign travel, international financial ties, unexplained assets, and his criminal history. The text also outlines the severity of the charges against him, specifically the sexual abuse of minors in New York and Palm Beach, allegedly facilitated by employees and associates.
DOJ-OGR-00021095.jpg
This legal document argues that a charge (Count Six) should be dismissed because the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) is bound by a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The author contends that the NPA shows an "affirmative appearance" of a broad restriction on prosecution for co-conspirators, contrasting it with the specifically limited non-prosecution provision for Epstein, which was restricted to "in this District."
DOJ-OGR-00015155.jpg
This document is a legal filing (Page 23 of 31) arguing against a Government motion to unseal grand jury materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text highlights procedural irregularities, noting that the motion was filed solely by the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) without the support of the local U.S. Attorney's Office or the trial team familiar with the case. It further criticizes the Government for failing to notify Epstein and Maxwell's victims in advance and for demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the trial record.
DOJ-OGR-00015142.jpg
This document, filed on August 11, 2025, details the procedural timeline regarding the unsealing of grand jury transcripts and exhibits in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines communications between the Court, the Government, and Maxwell between July 29 and August 5, 2025, specifically noting Maxwell's opposition to unsealing the transcripts and the Government's efforts to notify victims.
DOJ-OGR-00002166.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing detailing the background of an indictment against an unnamed defendant. It alleges that between 1994 and 1997, the defendant conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to facilitate the sexual abuse of minors by identifying, enticing, and grooming them. The document lists the specific charges, which include conspiracy, enticement of a minor, transportation of minors for illegal sex acts, and perjury for lying in a civil deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00001993.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Motion for Bail) arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell has now provided a thorough review of her finances for the years 2015-2020, addressing previous court concerns. Defense counsel retained UK accounting firm Macalvins to analyze bank statements, tax returns, and FBAR filings for Maxwell and her spouse. This report was further validated by a redacted former IRS Special Agent with 40 years of experience in financial fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00022129.jpg
This document is page two of a legal agreement, likely for deferred prosecution, filed on May 25, 2021. It outlines strict conditions for an individual, including reporting to a U.S. Pretrial Services Officer, completing 100 hours of community service, and fully cooperating with investigations by the USAO-SDNY, FBI, and DOJ-OIG, particularly concerning their employment with the Bureau of Prisons. Failure to comply could result in the USAO-SDNY revoking the agreement and proceeding with prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00017003.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The discussion centers on the precise wording of a jury instruction concerning "uncalled witnesses," with Mr. Everdell proposing a modification and Mr. Rohrbach defending the standard instruction used in the district.
DOJ-OGR-00010541.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) outlining the procedural history of charges against the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the timeline of indictments from June 2020 through March 2021, listing eight specific counts including conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts (1994-2004), sex trafficking (2001-2004), and perjury.
DOJ-OGR-00013553.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Ms. Moe, and the judge. Ms. Moe is requesting to present exhibits to the jury in a streamlined fashion without a witness, arguing it would be more efficient. The judge questions this unusual procedure, suggesting it could be handled during closing arguments and noting its difference from other methods.
DOJ-OGR-00002976.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) does not immunize the defendant, Maxwell, from prosecution. The argument is based on two points: the NPA's scope is strictly limited to specific federal crimes committed between 2001 and 2007, and the mere mention of "co-conspirator" does not automatically include Maxwell within the agreement's protections.
DOJ-OGR-00004808.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on July 1, 2021, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that statements made to the media by defense appellate counsel, Mr. Markus, violate Local Rule 23.1. The filing specifically cites a recent Op-Ed where Markus compared his client's case to Bill Cosby's, arguing these extrajudicial comments are designed to prejudice potential jurors and interfere with a fair trial. The Government asserts that relief is warranted to prevent further prejudicial statements.
DOJ-OGR-00004717.jpg
This legal document, filed on May 25, 2021, is a legal argument concerning the scope of plea agreements across different federal judicial districts. The author argues, based on Second Circuit precedent like Annabi, that a plea agreement from one district does not bind another unless explicitly stated. The document contrasts this with a broader interpretation from the Third Circuit (in United States v. Gebbie), which the defendant in the current case (Maxwell) is urging the court to adopt.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity