Southern District of New York
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
FBI
|
Professional collaborative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Jurisdictional separation |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Institutional independence |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
OFF
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein's attorneys
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Subject of prosecution |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Redacted Sender
|
Employment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jack Scarola
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
[Redacted] AUSA
|
Employment |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Efrain Reyes
|
Defendant prosecutor |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Oath Keepers
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Investigation subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Judicial |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein Investigation (2018R01618)
|
Investigating authority |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
Southern District of Florida
|
Jurisdictional dispute |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell by the Southern District of New York | New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers were in touch with the Southern District of New York. | Southern District of New York | View |
| N/A | N/A | Southern District of New York was in touch with Mr. Epstein. | N/A | View |
| 2020-06-10 | N/A | UMB received a request/subpoena regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. | UMB (Kansas City, MO) | View |
| 2019-07-17 | N/A | Filing of detention submission document for JE (Jeffrey Epstein). | New York, NY | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Miami Herald filed federal court motion seeking access to sealed documents. | Southern District of New York | View |
EFTA00009853.pdf
An email chain from October 2019 involving an Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York regarding 'Mark Epstein.' The thread reveals a scheduling miscommunication: the attorney expected a meeting on Monday, Oct 28 at 3:00 PM and asked if the other party was en route, while the respondent claimed the meeting was set for Oct 31.
EFTA00009834.pdf
This document contains a series of email exchanges between defense attorney Joe Nascimento and prosecutors from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) regarding a client connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The emails discuss scheduling meetings, proffers, and interviews, as well as confirming representation after the passing of the client's previous attorney, Alan Ross.
EFTA00008708.pdf
Transcript of a Grand Jury proceeding on July 8, 2020, in the Southern District of New York. The Assistant U.S. Attorney presented a superseding indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell to correct clerical errors in perjury counts (Counts 5 and 6), specifically fixing the docket number of a civil case from 15 Civ. 7344 to 15 Civ. 7433. The proceeding included voir dire of jurors regarding their knowledge of Maxwell and Epstein, but no new evidence or witnesses were presented.
DOJ-OGR-00000252.tif
This document discusses the legal context surrounding the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell and the plea agreement made by Epstein. It highlights the government's intent to protect Epstein's associates from federal prosecution through a broad 'including but not limited to' clause, and notes the government's concerns about the strength of its case and victims' willingness to proceed to trial, referencing the OPR report.
DOJ-OGR-00000058.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing, discussing the interpretation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and plea agreements. It argues that ambiguities in such agreements should be resolved against the government, citing several court cases. The document specifically contends that the NPA in question was intended to bind the Southern District of New York, contrary to a Second Circuit conclusion that suggested it only bound the Southern District of Florida.
DOJ-OGR-00000045.tif
This document details the legal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, focusing on the scope and limitations of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It explains how a co-conspirator clause was broadened to cover the entire United States, Epstein's 2008 Florida plea, his 2019 indictment in New York for sex trafficking, and his subsequent death, followed by Maxwell's indictment as his co-conspirator.
DOJ-OGR-00022669.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, likely a deposition or interview, involving Ghislaine Maxwell and an interviewer named Todd Blanche. Maxwell discusses her relationship with Mr. Epstein, which she describes as 'almost nonexistent' after his release from jail, but admits to having phone calls and emails with him during times of legal trouble. She also discusses her limited knowledge of law enforcement's interest in her and her lawyers' communications with the Southern District of New York regarding Mr. Epstein's case.
DOJ-OGR-00022564.tif
This document is a page from a transcript, likely a deposition, involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Todd Blanche. They discuss the origin and transformation of information, potentially a list, from a civil case and personal computer, into a book and a combination list associated with Epstein and the Southern District of New York. Maxwell denies having seen a specific list and states that the 'story' is controlled by five people, with four alleged victims speaking about a list, blackmail, and other issues, involving lawyers and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00018362.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a stipulation agreed upon by the prosecution and defense regarding the testimony of Sergeant Michael Dawson to avoid recalling him to the stand. Defense attorney Christian Everdell reads the stipulation into the record, which concerns a cardboard box (Government Exhibit 294) recovered during a search.
DOJ-OGR-00018057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022) during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. A procedural discussion occurs between the Judge (The Court), Defense Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding an objection to the foundation of the witness's knowledge about a specific 'book' created after the witness left employment in 2002. The Court decides to allow the question provisionally, noting the testimony will be stricken if proper foundation is not established.
DOJ-OGR-00017911.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio, an expert witness, who defines the concept of 'grooming' and outlines its five distinct stages, including victim selection, isolation, building trust through deception, desensitization, and maintaining control for coercion.
DOJ-OGR-00015094.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing submitted on August 5, 2025, by the defense firm Markus/Moss in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts, distinguishing Maxwell's case from *In re Biaggi* and rejecting a Florida public records case as irrelevant to federal Rule 6(e) protections. The defense concludes that there is no precedent for unsealing such transcripts in an ongoing matter and requests the motion be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00015071.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 10 of 10) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the case number historically associated with United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document is dated July 29, 2025, and is signed by Pamela J. Bondi as U.S. Attorney General, Todd Blanche as Deputy AG, and Jay Clayton as U.S. Attorney for the SDNY. The text argues that proposed redactions are necessary to protect victim-related information.
DOJ-OGR-00008421.jpg
This is the signature page (page 3 of 3) of a legal document filed on December 17, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The document is submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach representing the Southern District of New York. It notes that items 'have been read into the record' and indicates a copy was emailed to Defense Counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00008374.jpg
This legal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 14, 2021, opposes defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request to call three attorneys for victims (Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman) to testify. The Government argues that their testimony about privileged client conversations or discussions with the Government would be irrelevant and an improper attempt to circumvent privilege, as the victims themselves have already testified.
DOJ-OGR-00008359.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 3 of 3) of a legal filing (Document 539) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on December 12, 2021. It is submitted by Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach. The document indicates a copy was sent to Defense Counsel via ECF.
DOJ-OGR-00008244.jpg
This is the final page of a legal document (Document 528) filed on December 6, 2021, in the Southern District of New York. The United States Attorney, Damian Williams, and his assistants conclude their argument by requesting the Court to preclude testimony from "Jane's counsel." They argue that allowing such testimony would compel a witness named Glassman to provide extensive context beyond existing notes, thereby exceeding the scope of any privilege waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00008235.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 526) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 3, 2021. It serves as the signature page for the prosecution, submitted by U.S. Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach of the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00001845.jpg
This court order, dated December 2, 2020, addresses the individualized detention conditions of Ms. Maxwell, noting concerns about the lack of redress for serious conditions. It directs Warden Tellez to provide a first-hand accounting to the Court and counsel regarding these conditions. Additionally, MDC legal counsel is ordered to submit a letter to the Court by December 4, 2020, for review to determine if further information is needed.
DOJ-OGR-00001836.jpg
This document is the second page of a filing from the United States Attorney's Office regarding the conditions of confinement for a defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on the case number) at the MDC. It details the schedule for legal calls, discovery review, and isolation, asserting that the defendant has more access than other inmates and that the Government is actively communicating with defense counsel regarding any concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00001831.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the U.S. Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, requesting an extension for producing approximately 1.2 million documents seized from Epstein's residences. The Government asks to move the deadline to November 23, 2020, and to extend the motions schedule. Judge Alison J. Nathan grants the request in an order dated November 9, 2020, setting new deadlines for motions into early 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001815.jpg
This document is the final page of a Government filing (dated Oct 30, 2020) regarding the detention conditions and discovery process for the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The Government argues against the need for a court order regarding MDC issues, citing that protocols are already in place for passing papers, COVID-19 safety (Plexiglas barriers), and laptop viewing. The filing asserts that the defendant has access to discovery materials for approximately 13 hours a day—more than any other inmate—and details technical efforts to resolve file viewing issues mentioned in a footnote.
DOJ-OGR-00001794.jpg
This document is the conclusion page (page 8) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated October 7, 2020. Submitted by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz to Judge Alison J. Nathan, the text affirms the Government's commitment to its disclosure obligations following representations made at an initial conference.
DOJ-OGR-00001786.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing submitted on October 7, 2020, by the Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys (Comey, Moe, Pomerantz) in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government argues against the premature disclosure of witness identities and sensitive materials to the defense, citing risks to the ongoing investigation and the potential to deter other victims from coming forward. They request the Court to approve a delay in disclosing these materials pursuant to Rule 16(d).
DOJ-OGR-00001781.jpg
This document is the final page (Page 3) of a legal filing (Document 60) submitted on October 6, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government, represented by Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Comey, Moe, and Pomerantz, requests a delay in disclosing witness identities and sensitive materials to the defense to prevent jeopardizing the ongoing investigation and to encourage victims to come forward. The filing cites Rule 16(d) as the legal basis for this protective measure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity