The government
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
24
Very Strong
|
70 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Representative |
17
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
68 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
65 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Representative |
12
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
12
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
organization
the defense
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Representative |
11
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
15 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
18 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Opposing counsel |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Witness prosecution |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
A. Farmer
|
Witness prosecution |
8
Strong
|
4 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Modification of a Protective Order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal Argument regarding NPA applicability | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing Arguments and Jury Charge | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Modification of Protective Order | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Boies Schiller began producing materials not covered by protective orders in response to subpoenas. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Testimony (Trial Tr. at 2518–22) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Submission of evidence (Journal) | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Anticipated trial where evidence regarding victims and terms like 'rape' will be used. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Materials | Court (Southern District of... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's motion to unseal testimony and exhibits | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Entry of Non-Prosecution Agreement | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Previous hearing where government touted documentary evidence. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three bail renewal hearings | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proffer session | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing regarding requested discovery | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Transfer of legal materials | Court / MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | The government served a redacted party with a subpoena to produce [redacted items]. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal defense against charges | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Criminal indictment alleging Ms. Maxwell committed perjury. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Witness preparation for trial where the government asked McHugh to review exhibits. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government charged Jeffrey Epstein with conduct falling within the NPA time scope. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail hearing argument. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government secret deal (Non-Prosecution Agreement) | Florida (implied context of... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001674.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court-filed Protective Order from July 28, 2020, in a criminal case. It outlines the rules for handling discovery materials, stating that all members of the defense team are bound by the order even without individual signatures. The order mandates that Defense Counsel must encrypt discovery shared through non-electronic means and strictly prohibits all parties from posting any discovery information on the internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00001656.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 27, 2020. It defines 'Highly Confidential Information' as potentially including nude or sexualized images and establishes strict rules for its use by the Defense Counsel, limiting it solely to the defense of the current criminal action. The document also provides a legal mechanism for the Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's 'Highly Confidential' designation of materials before the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001651.jpg
This document is a page from a Protective Order in criminal case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 27, 2020. It establishes strict rules for handling 'Discovery' materials, limiting their use by both government and defense witnesses and counsel solely for preparation for the criminal trial. The order explicitly prohibits using the information for civil proceedings and forbids any party, including the Defendant and defense team, from posting the Discovery or its contents on the Internet.
DOJ-OGR-00001648.jpg
This document is a proposed protective order for the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in the Southern District of New York on July 27, 2020. The order aims to manage the disclosure of sensitive materials from the government to the defense during the discovery process. It seeks to protect the privacy of individuals, prevent impediment to the ongoing investigation, and avoid prejudicial pretrial publicity by controlling the dissemination of confidential information.
DOJ-OGR-00001643.jpg
This is a letter dated July 27, 2020, from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys at Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. The attorneys request the court to enter a protective order for discovery materials in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter highlights that while most terms have been agreed upon with the government, two key disputes remain: whether government witnesses should face the same restrictions as the defense regarding discovery materials, and whether the defense should be allowed to identify alleged victims or witnesses who are already public.
DOJ-OGR-00001629.jpg
This document is the conclusion page of a legal filing (Document 22) dated July 13, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk and requests that any application for bail be denied. It is signed by Assistant US Attorney Alison Moe on behalf of Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss and colleagues Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00001625.jpg
This document is page 15 of a Government memorandum filed on July 13, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The prosecution argues against granting bail, citing that the MDC is adequately handling COVID-19 risks and referencing legal precedents where bail was denied despite the pandemic. A footnote emphasizes the Government's position that the defendant has the financial means to flee the country and that pandemic travel restrictions would not prevent her flight.
DOJ-OGR-00001622.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 13, 2020, argues that a defendant is a flight risk due to significant undisclosed financial assets. It details her access to millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts in Switzerland and England, including a trust account with over $4 million, and highlights several large transactions. The document also notes her recent arrest at a New Hampshire property purchased for over $1 million in cash, suggesting she has not been forthcoming about her wealth and has the means to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00001621.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The Government contends the defendant is a significant flight risk because she has access to millions of dollars, possesses a multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom, and is a citizen of a country that does not extradite to the United States. The proposed bail package, secured by foreign property, is deemed meaningless as the U.S. Government cannot easily seize foreign assets.
DOJ-OGR-00001620.jpg
This legal document is a memorandum from the Government arguing against the defendant's bail proposal. The Government asserts the defendant is a flight risk due to her considerable but undisclosed financial resources, her failure to submit a financial affidavit, and her history of lying under oath, specifically citing two counts of perjury from a 2016 civil suit. The document urges the Court to view the defendant as untrustworthy and deny the bail proposal, which it claims offers no security for her appearance.
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-00001613.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The government asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her opaque finances, access to extraordinary resources abroad, and demonstrated skill at hiding. The proposed $5 million bond is deemed insufficient because it relies on an overseas property as collateral and six unidentified co-signers whose ability or incentive to pay is unknown.
DOJ-OGR-00001593.jpg
This page is from a legal memorandum filed on July 10, 2020, arguing for the pretrial release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that the government has failed to prove she is a flight risk or that no conditions exist to assure her appearance, citing the Bail Reform Act and Supreme Court precedent (Salerno) establishing liberty as the norm and detention as an exception. A footnote references a separate letter regarding poor prison conditions, including lack of visitation and legal access, which the defense argues are 'compelling reasons' for release.
DOJ-OGR-00001585.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Preliminary Statement filed on July 10, 2020, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. It serves as a Memorandum in Opposition to the government's request for detention. The text argues that Maxwell is being unfairly conflated with Jeffrey Epstein, despite having no contact with him for over a decade, and asserts she is not a flight risk as she has lived in the US since 1991 and remained in the country following Epstein's 2019 arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00001582.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 18 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 10, 2020. The filing argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and challenging the government's assertion that she is a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001536.jpg
This document is a letter dated July 6, 2020, from attorneys Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell (Cohen & Gresser LLP) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense informs the court that they finally made contact with Maxwell at the Metropolitan Detention Center that evening and she has waived her physical presence for upcoming proceedings. The defense and prosecution have agreed to schedule the remote arraignment and bail hearing for the morning of July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001494.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (likely a detention memo) from the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It argues the defendant is a flight risk due to massive financial resources, citing over 15 bank accounts with balances reaching $20 million, a $15 million NYC property sale in 2016, and recent large transfers in 2019. A footnote explicitly links the defendant to Jeffrey Epstein, noting that over $20 million was transferred from Epstein's accounts to hers between 2007 and 2011.
DOJ-OGR-00001451.jpg
This page from a 2021 legal filing discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions at the MDC. It details her complaints regarding sleep disruption due to flashlight checks and the lack of an eye mask, noting that the MDC does not issue eye masks but allows other items to be used. The document records that Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request to modify the monitoring schedule on May 14, 2021, stating her claims were unsupported by an affidavit.
DOJ-OGR-00001450.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, discussing the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at the MDC. It details a May 5, 2021, letter from the Government to Judge Nathan explaining that Maxwell is subject to flashlight checks every 15 minutes due to an 'enhanced security schedule,' compared to every 30 minutes for SHU inmates and hourly for general population. The document asserts these checks are for safety purposes, specifically to ensure the inmate is breathing and not in distress, noting that while Maxwell is not on suicide watch, her high-profile charges warrant increased monitoring.
DOJ-OGR-00001446.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770) summarizes Judge Nathan's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell bail. The Judge cited Maxwell's 'substantial international ties,' 'extraordinary financial resources,' lack of US ties, and 'demonstrated sophistication' in hiding assets as reasons she poses a significant flight risk. Additionally, the Judge rejected arguments regarding the difficulty of preparing a defense while incarcerated, though mandated that the Government ensure adequate attorney-client communication.
DOJ-OGR-00001436.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 220) from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated March 5, 2021, regarding the incarceration conditions of the defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses safety concerns necessitating her isolation and responds to a court inquiry by stating that MDC cannot provide an eye mask as it is considered contraband, though she may use other items. A footnote clarifies that her current housing was determined partly due to her own safety concerns regarding the general population and as an alternative to the SHU.
DOJ-OGR-00001428.jpg
In this court order from May 14, 2021, Judge Alison J. Nathan denies Ghislaine Maxwell's request to override the Bureau of Prisons' security protocols regarding frequent safety checks and the prohibition of eye masks at the MDC. The Judge rules the request unsubstantiated but urges the MDC to consider reducing sleep disruption and ensures Maxwell is only subjected to necessary security protocols consistent with similarly situated detainees. The order is part of Case 1:20-cr-00330.
DOJ-OGR-00001409.jpg
This legal document is a renewed motion for bond on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that her pre-trial confinement conditions are grueling, citing over 318 days in solitary with sleep deprivation caused by flashlight checks every 15 minutes. The motion refutes the government's justifications for these measures—such as suicide risk or the high-profile nature of the case—as nonsensical and unsupported by evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001402.jpg
This legal document is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court, filed on February 7, 2021, concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the Court's request for public updates on Maxwell's confinement is harmful, fueling negative media attention and jeopardizing her right to a fair trial. The letter criticizes the government's actions and requests that any future updates on Maxwell's condition be filed under seal to protect her privacy and legal rights.
DOJ-OGR-00001401.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell. It details grievances including the persistence of mail delays (specifically a FedEx package with a discovery disc), the serving of moldy food, sleep deprivation due to constant lighting and flashlight checks, and the deletion of legal emails via CorrLinks. The filing argues that Maxwell is in 'de facto solitary confinement' and lacks adequate computer resources to review discovery for her trial.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity