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-00016755.jpg
This document is page 26 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge is issuing rulings regarding the admissibility of prior statements made by witnesses 'Jane' and 'Annie' to determine if they constitute inconsistencies for impeachment. The court rules that several statements regarding details such as a timeline, the presence of a chef, and the amount of horseback riding are either not inconsistent or are collateral matters.
DOJ-OGR-00016625.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 details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding the testimony of a witness named Loftus and the admission of an FBI 302 report. The defense argues for a live witness to highlight an inconsistent statement regarding whether 'Virginia' approached 'Carolyn' to offer $300 at a party or at a house in Virginia.
DOJ-OGR-00013277.jpg
This document is the final page (264) of a court transcript index from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists various exhibit numbers (e.g., 325, 418, 420B) and the corresponding transcript page numbers where they were received. The document was filed on August 10, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00019835.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated April 1, 2021) presenting facts about Ghislaine Maxwell's arrest and detention. It argues that Maxwell, a 59-year-old citizen with no prior criminal history, was subjected to an unnecessary SWAT raid in July 2020 despite being in contact with authorities. The text details her 'nightmarish' prison conditions, comparing them to those of 'Hannibal Lecter,' citing isolation, sleep deprivation, and invasive searches.
DOJ-OGR-00019829.jpg
This document is a Motion Information Statement filed on April 1, 2021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case 21-770/21-58). Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by attorney David Oscar Markus, is appealing a decision by Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York, requesting reasonable bail or an evidentiary hearing. The motion is opposed by the United States of America, represented by AUSA Won S. Shin.
DOJ-OGR-00019688.jpg
This is a Summary Order and Mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued on November 9, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061-cr). The document lists the panel of judges (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) who presided over the term held on October 19, 2020. It identifies the legal counsel for both the Appellee (US Attorneys including Lara Pomerantz and Maurene Comey) and the Defendant-Appellant (Adam Mueller and Ty Gee of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.).
DOJ-OGR-00019683.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020. It lists the judicial panel (Judges Cabranes, Pooler, and Raggi) presiding over the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 20-3061-cr). It identifies the legal counsel for both the United States (Appellee) and Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant).
DOJ-OGR-00019677.jpg
This document is the first page of a Summary Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated October 19, 2020, for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It identifies the presiding judges (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) and lists the legal counsel for both the appellee (United States), led by AUSA Lara Pomerantz, and the defendant-appellant (Ghislaine Maxwell), represented by Adam Mueller. The order was issued from the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York City.
DOJ-OGR-00013313.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It depicts the beginning of the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Shawn identifies Government Exhibit 20 as a copy of his ID, and the defense attorney Ms. Sternheim voices no objection to the exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00010711.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal filing dated June 23, 2022, regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that victims named Sarah and Elizabeth should be entitled to deliver oral victim impact statements at the sentencing. The filing requests that if the Court doubts this entitlement, they be granted more time to brief the issue, noting they only had 48 hours to respond to a previous court order.
DOJ-OGR-00010664.jpg
This document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley, counsel for Annie Farmer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated June 22, 2022. It provides Annie Farmer's victim impact statement regarding the crimes committed by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and requests permission for Ms. Farmer to make an oral statement at Maxwell's sentencing. The statement details the profound and ongoing psychological and emotional impact of the abuse on Annie Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00010626.jpg
This document is page 35 of 68 from a court filing (Document 672) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on June 24, 2022. The entire content of the page is redacted, leaving only the court header and the DOJ bates number (DOJ-OGR-00010626) visible.
DOJ-OGR-00010417.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 2 of 2) of a court filing submitted on May 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It is submitted by United States Attorney Damian Williams and signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach from the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00010415.jpg
This is the signature page (page 2) of a legal document filed on May 11, 2022, in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal trial). It lists Damian Williams as the United States Attorney, with specific signatures from Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach representing the Southern District of New York. The document indicates a copy was sent to the Defense Counsel via ECF.
DOJ-OGR-00010414.jpg
This document is a letter from the United States Attorney to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter concerns the government's motion for the exclusion of time for Counts Seven and Eight under the Speedy Trial Act until June 28, 2022, the scheduled date of sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text denies the defendant's Rule 33 motion for a new trial and outlines the background of the jury selection process, detailing how it was conducted under COVID-19 protocols using questionnaires and voir dire to screen for bias in a high-profile case. It references specific docket entries (366, 367, 404, 427, 459) and transcript dates.
DOJ-OGR-00010323.jpg
This is the second page of a legal filing (Document 652) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 1, 2022. The document is an opposition by the US Government to a motion for a stay, arguing it is based only on the defendant's conjecture. It is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00010256.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330. It features a colloquy between a judge ('your Honor') and a witness who served as a juror. The questioning focuses on whether the juror answered previous questions accurately, followed instructions, or was distracted by personal issues (specifically thoughts about an 'ex') during the trial or while filling out a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00010238.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text captures testimony from a witness (likely a juror, based on context regarding a questionnaire) defending themselves against potential criminal charges for failing to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The witness argues it was an 'honest mistake' and claims they did not realize their family or friends would learn about the abuse through their subsequent interview or the case proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00010145.jpg
This document is a page from the Curriculum Vitae of Stephen Gillers, likely submitted as an exhibit in a court case (possibly as an expert witness). It details his legal and public service activities between 1979 and 1992, including roles with the ABA, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the David Dinkins Mayoral Transition Search Committee. It also lists his bar memberships in New York and various federal courts. The document bears stamps from multiple court filings, including a 2012 criminal case and a 2022 civil case (likely Guiffre v. Maxwell), and a DOJ production number.
DOJ-OGR-00010127.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 6, 2012, presents an opinion on the ethical obligations of Brune & Richard lawyers concerning disclosures related to a new trial motion involving juror Conrad. It concludes that the lawyers did not violate their ethical obligations in their research, motions, or communications with the Court. The opinion is based on a review of various legal documents and transcripts, and references the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009943.jpg
This document is a transcript excerpt from the trial 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas' dated February 15, 2012. It features the testimony of a witness named Conrad, who is questioned about a letter she wrote to Mr. Okula, her use of specific stamps, and her negative opinions of individuals named Brubaker and Parse (referring to them as 'idiot', 'stupid', and 'fricken crooks'). The witness also admits to having been suspended in the Southern District of New York. This document appears to have been filed as an exhibit in a later 2022 case (1:20-cv-00813), likely the US Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase litigation regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00009637.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 635) dated March 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains proposed questions for a juror regarding potential bias against Maxwell and their ability to be fair. The document is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00009627.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Southern District of New York, signed by US Attorney Damian Williams on March 7, 2022. It requests the Court to issue an order compelling a redacted individual to testify at a March 8, 2022 hearing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The request is made pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6003, which typically relate to granting immunity to witnesses to compel testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009539.jpg
This is the final signature page (page 3) of a court filing (Document 617) from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The US Attorney's office argues that because Juror 50 has already spoken publicly, no redactions are justified for a specific motion, which should be docketed. The document is signed by US Attorney Damian Williams and AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity