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 |
DOJ-OGR-00020749.jpg
This document is page 14 of a superseding indictment (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on March 29, 2021. It details Count Three, charging Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein with conspiracy to transport minors for criminal sexual activity between 1994 and 2004. It specifically alleges Maxwell coerced 'Minor Victim-1' to travel from Florida to New York to engage in sex acts with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00020746.jpg
This document page, part of the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell, details the grooming of 'Minor Victim-4' between 2001 and 2004, including the sending of lingerie from New York to Florida and the encouragement by both Epstein and Maxwell for the victim to recruit other underage girls for sexualized massages at the Palm Beach residence. It alleges that Maxwell and Epstein paid cash for these acts. Furthermore, it charges Maxwell with perjury regarding these events during a 2016 civil deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00020721.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket report (Case 22-1426) dated June 2022, detailing procedural orders leading up to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders establishing strict protocols for victim impact statements, including deadlines for submission and objections, and prohibits electronic devices in the courtroom. It also notes letters from defense counsel Bobbi Sternheim and attorney Robert Lewis, and issues a correction regarding the contact information for Victim Witness Unit Coordinator Wendy Olsen.
DOJ-OGR-00020652.jpg
This document is a section of a court docket from the Southern District of New York in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, covering dates from April 7, 2021, to April 16, 2021. It details procedural events including the rescheduling of an arraignment on a superseding indictment, the denial of a request regarding materials in courthouse cellblocks due to US Marshal policy, and a motion to continue the trial date. The document also includes judicial orders regarding redactions and the unsealing of specific legal memorandums.
DOJ-OGR-00020649.jpg
This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 24, 2021. It details a procedural order (Entry 172) regarding Maxwell's attempt to subpoena a law firm representing her alleged victims for confidential information, setting a schedule for objections and redactions. Additionally, it records Maxwell's filing of a Notice of Appeal (Entry 173) regarding a separate order, along with the associated fee and transmission of records to the US Court of Appeals.
DOJ-OGR-00020634.jpg
This document is a court docket report (SDNY) from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, generated in 2023 but detailing events from July and August 2020. It includes the conclusion of a judicial order regarding a protective order for discovery materials, balancing witness privacy against defense needs, and lists subsequent procedural filings including motions and responses between Maxwell's defense team (Everdell) and the Government (Rossmiller) regarding discovery disclosure. The text highlights the Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed protective order to safeguard witness privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00020549.jpg
This document is a court docket entry log from Case 22-1426 in the Southern District of New York, dated July 8, 2022, detailing events from November 15, 2021, related to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. It records an order by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding courtroom access, the filing of transcripts from prior conferences, a letter from Maxwell's defense about delayed disclosures, and the minutes from a pretrial conference held that day, listing all attending counsel for both the defense and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00020514.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from March 31, 2021, to April 14, 2021. It details procedural events including the scheduling and rescheduling of an arraignment on a Second Superseding Indictment, the granting of Pro Hac Vice status to attorney Sigrid McCawley, and various letter motions regarding MDC conditions and subpoenas. It also includes a specific denial by Judge Nathan regarding a request for Maxwell to possess materials in courthouse cellblocks, citing US Marshal policy.
DOJ-OGR-00020474.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from June 2022 detailing procedural filings related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the submission and deadline protocols for victim impact statements under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Submissions from both the defense (Bobbi Sternheim) and the prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, et al.) are logged, primarily concerning victim notifications and objections to statements.
DOJ-OGR-00020473.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings and orders between May 10, 2022, and June 21, 2022. It details pre-sentencing motions, including a denied request for an extension by the defense and granted motions regarding Speedy Trial Exclusion. Significant entries include logistical orders for the June 28, 2022 sentencing hearing and strict protocols for victim impact statements under the Crime Victims Rights Act.
DOJ-OGR-00020448.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 22-1426) regarding the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. It details entries from November 15, 2021, including logistics for public/press access to the courtroom, the filing of transcripts for previous conferences, and a dispute regarding the late receipt of government disclosures at the MDC. It concludes with a minute entry for a pretrial conference where Maxwell was present with her defense team and the government prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00020443.jpg
This document contains a court docket log from November 9, 2021, related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426 on appeal). It details orders signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding jury selection (voir dire) questions, the use of pseudonyms for witnesses, and preparations for an in-person hearing on November 10 regarding Rule 412 (victim privacy evidence). It also notes correspondence from defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim regarding bond release and from prosecutors regarding victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00020413.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between March 31, 2021, and April 14, 2021. Key events include the scheduling and rescheduling of an arraignment on a Second Superseding Indictment to April 23, 2021, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. The document also details a denial by Judge Nathan of a defense request to allow Maxwell to possess materials in courthouse cellblocks, citing U.S. Marshal policy.
DOJ-OGR-00018736.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the case number and attorneys) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness denies using drugs or alcohol and denies an allegation that Virginia Roberts approached her at a party to offer her $300. The witness confirms she was interviewed by the FBI in 2007 regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00015460.jpg
This document is page 9 of a FedEx invoice dated December 23, 2002, for Jeffrey E. Epstein's account. It details three shipments sent from Epstein's office at 457 Madison Avenue on December 17, 2002. Two packages were sent to Financial Trust Company in St. Thomas (recipients Cecile Dejongh and Jeanne Brennan), and one was sent to Rosaind Davidson at Tower Gate Chase Parkinson, with the latter's address redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00015384.jpg
This document is page 2 of 6 of a FedEx invoice dated November 25, 2002. It contains a blank 'Adjustment Request' form and an address change form for Account Number 1144-2081-6. The document is marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' and bears Bates stamps indicating it is part of evidence files for the SDNY (likely Ghislaine Maxwell case) and DOJ.
DOJ-OGR-00002397.jpg
This document outlines procedures for handling confidential information in a legal case. It details the timeline for designating material to counsel, the requirement for a Motion to Seal when filing confidential information with the Court, and the process for challenging designations of protected material, including "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY" classifications.
DOJ-OGR-00002388.jpg
This document is page 5 (electronic page 11 of 18) of a legal filing from Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS (Giuffre v. Maxwell), filed on March 4, 2016. It outlines terms of a Protective Order, specifically regarding the sharing of deposition contents and the requirement to file a 'Motion to Seal' for confidential information. A significant portion of the text is struck through, indicating the removal of a clause that allowed parties to object to confidential designations and placed the burden on the designating party to justify the confidentiality in court.
DOJ-OGR-00002388(1).jpg
This document is page 5 (filed as page 11 of 23) of a legal filing, specifically a Protective Order from Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It outlines procedures for handling confidential information, specifically requiring a Motion to Seal when filing such documents. A significant portion of the text regarding the objection process for confidential designations has been struck through (redlined), indicating it was removed or edited during the drafting process.
DOJ-OGR-00002375.jpg
Page 5 of 7 (or 45 of 67 in the larger filing) from a Protective Order in the civil case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The text outlines legal procedures for designating deposition testimony as confidential, filing confidential materials under seal in the Southern District of New York, and the process for objecting to confidential designations.
DOJ-OGR-00002330(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, argues that the jury selection process in the White Plains Division systematically excludes Black and Hispanic jurors. It relies on a statistical analysis by Mr. Martin, which found that the demographic makeup of the jury wheel deviates by more than three standard deviations from comparison populations, suggesting the discrepancy is inherent to the process and not a result of chance.
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-00002261(1).jpg
Defense attorney Christian R. Everdell writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal regarding the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail motion. The letter argues there is good cause for the extension as the defense considers submitting a third bail application with stricter conditions and needs time to research jurisdictional issues and review documents.
DOJ-OGR-00002234(1).jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Opinion and Order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, citing flight risk, substantial resources, foreign citizenship in a non-extradition country, and lack of candor regarding finances. It outlines the background of the case, including the June 2020 indictment for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors and the Defendant's subsequent arrest in New Hampshire.
DOJ-OGR-00001843.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing from the US Attorney's Office for the SDNY regarding the detention conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecutors argue that Warden Tellez should provide a first-hand accounting of why Maxwell is subject to strict surveillance measures (body scans, flashlight checks) despite 24/7 camera monitoring, noting that the MDC Legal Department would only provide second-hand information.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity