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-00001393.jpg
A legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim arguing for a continuance of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. The defense cites the difficulties of preparing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to investigate new charges and 'quarter-century-old allegations,' and the review of voluminous discovery produced in November 2020. The document criticizes the government's timeline estimates and their opposition to the delay.
DOJ-OGR-00001390.jpg
This page is from a legal motion filed by the defense team of Ghislaine Maxwell (specifically Bobbi C. Sternheim's office) on April 19, 2021. The defense argues that the government's opposition to a trial continuance is unreasonable because the prosecution has significantly expanded the case, including increasing the conspiracy timeline from 4 to 11 years and adding new charges related to 'Accuser-4'. The document highlights a massive discovery dump on April 13, 2021, involving 20,000 pages of documents related to 226 non-testifying witnesses, which the defense claims they need more time to review before the scheduled July 12 trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001385.jpg
This document is the 'Conclusion' section of a legal filing (likely an appeal brief) dated April 19, 2021, arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that Maxwell is not a flight risk, that the government's case is weak and based on 'old, anonymous accusations,' and that she cannot prepare for trial under her current 'appalling' prison conditions. The text heavily criticizes the government for relying on the specter of Jeffrey Epstein to justify her detention without a proper adversarial hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00001383.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell against the Government's handling of her abuse allegations. The defense claims the Government's conclusion that the abuse was 'unfounded' is a 'self-serving proclamation' based on a Bureau of Prisons video review that neither the prosecutors, court, nor defense have seen. The document demands the video be produced for review and accuses the Government of hypocrisy and a desire to humiliate Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00001380.jpg
This legal document, page 8 of a filing in case 21-770, argues on behalf of defendant Ms. Maxwell. It claims that preparing for trial from custody is impossible due to pandemic restrictions and an overwhelming 2.7 million pages of discovery. The filing criticizes the Government's response and alleges that newly provided evidence is actually exculpatory Brady material that undermines the prosecution's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
This is page 6 of a legal brief filed on April 19, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Maxwell). The text argues that the lower court failed to ensure the reliability of the government's evidence during bail hearings, citing legal precedents *LaFontaine* and *Martir*. The defense contends that unlike the *Martir* case, Ms. Maxwell actively challenged the government's 'flimsy proffer' through multiple hearings, but the court accepted the government's claims 'blindly' and 'uncritically.'
DOJ-OGR-00001376.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 21-770, is a filing by the defense for a defendant named Maxwell. The defense argues that the government's indictment and additional charges are not evidence, do not strengthen the case, and do not justify her continued detention. The document also refutes the government's claim of corroborated witness testimony and notes that the defense has requested a continuance for the July trial, arguing that denying bail under these circumstances would be prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00001364.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 6) of a legal filing submitted on July 6, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz on behalf of U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, stating that the Government is willing to provide further details to the Court if necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00001362.jpg
This legal document, page 4 of a court filing, describes the search and wellness check procedures applied to a defendant at the MDC facility. It details daily pat-down searches, cell searches, and frequent nightly flashlight checks for safety. The document also responds to a specific complaint from the defendant's counsel on February 16, 2021, stating that an internal investigation found the search in question was appropriate and video-recorded, and that a subsequent directive for the defendant to clean her cell was due to hygiene issues, not retaliation.
DOJ-OGR-00001361.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the conditions of confinement for an unnamed female defendant at the MDC. It outlines that while in-person attorney visits are available seven days a week in rooms with HEPA filters, her defense counsel has opted for remote communication via VTC, email, and phone. The document also describes the facility's standard procedures for mail processing and the multiple daily and weekly pat-down and body scan searches the defendant undergoes.
DOJ-OGR-00001357.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated February 4, 2021. The letter provides an update on the conditions of confinement for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The Government reports that Maxwell has more time to review discovery materials than any other inmate (13 hours daily via computer) and has regular, private communication with her attorneys through video and phone calls, despite the suspension of in-person visits due to COVID-19.
DOJ-OGR-00001353.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated January 25, 2021, from the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The MDC requests the court to vacate a January 15, 2021 order concerning inmate Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing that her access to discovery materials and legal counsel is already extensive and sufficient. A stamped court order dated February 2, 2021, shows that Judge Nathan considered the request and responses from the Government and Defendant, and ultimately denied the MDC's request.
DOJ-OGR-00001351.jpg
A letter from defense attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a court order for the Bureau of Prisons to allow Ghislaine Maxwell access to a government-provided laptop on weekends and holidays. The letter argues that current restrictions hinder her ability to review voluminous discovery before her July 2021 trial, noting that the government does not object to the request and that she previously had full access during a COVID quarantine period.
DOJ-OGR-00001344.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York regarding the conditions of confinement for a defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell) at the MDC. The text details the defendant's schedule, including 13 hours of time outside the isolation cell daily (7am-8pm), access to discovery materials, computers, CorrLinks, and legal calls. It asserts that the defendant has more access to discovery and attorney communication than any other inmate at the facility, even while in quarantine.
DOJ-OGR-00001343.jpg
This letter, dated November 23, 2020, is from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It provides an update on the confinement conditions of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The letter details that Maxwell was placed in quarantine after a potential COVID-19 exposure from a staff member, outlines the quarantine protocols, and confirms that she has been provided with a laptop to review discovery materials and can still make private legal calls.
DOJ-OGR-00001337.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision to deny temporary release to the defendant, Maxwell, was not a clear error or abuse of discretion. The document states that the judge thoroughly reviewed Maxwell's arguments, including comparisons to other cases, but found significant differences that justified continued detention. It also asserts that the judge has ensured Maxwell has adequate access to her counsel to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001334.jpg
This document represents page 17 of a legal brief filed on April 12, 2021, arguing against the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not err in denying bail, citing Maxwell as a flight risk and noting the strength of the Government's evidence, which includes multiple victims and documentary corroboration. It discusses legal standards for temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) and cites relevant case law.
DOJ-OGR-00001332.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely an appellate brief by the government) dated April 12, 2021. It argues that Judge Nathan properly denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motions for bail and temporary release because she is a flight risk. The text outlines the applicable law regarding pretrial detention and the statutory presumption against release for offenses involving minor victims.
DOJ-OGR-00001326.jpg
This document details the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's second bail application, originally submitted on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell posed a significant flight risk due to her substantial resources, foreign ties (including citizenship in a non-extradition country), and lack of candor regarding her finances. The judge also noted the strength of the Government's case and the seriousness of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00001322.jpg
This legal document describes the initial bail hearing for a defendant named Maxwell, which took place on July 14, 2020. During the hearing, Judge Nathan heard arguments and received statements from victims, including Annie Farmer, who accused Maxwell of grooming and abuse. Based on the testimony and risk of flight, Judge Nathan ordered Maxwell to be detained.
DOJ-OGR-00001306.jpg
This is the final page (16) of a court order issued by US District Judge Martha Vazquez on February 6, 2021. The order grants Mr. Robertson's motion for immediate release (Doc 274) to allow him to prepare for an upcoming trial with his defense team, citing the need for preparation time and potential quarantine at 'La Pasada.' The judge simultaneously denies the government's emergency motion to stay the release order.
DOJ-OGR-00001303.jpg
This legal document is a filing by Mr. Robertson's defense team arguing against the government's motion for reconsideration of his pretrial release. The defense contends that continued detention, especially with COVID-19 restrictions in jails, prevents the necessary in-person meetings required to build trust and adequately prepare for trial, thereby infringing on his right to a fair trial. They assert that his release is essential for the preparation of his defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001302.jpg
This document appears to be page 12 of a legal filing from August 6, 2021, concerning a defendant named Mr. Robertson (Case 1:17-cr-02949). The text outlines significant challenges to the defense, including the recent withdrawal of initial attorneys, the complexity of the case (involving 24 government witnesses and potential 34-40 year sentence), and severe difficulties in trial preparation caused by COVID-19 restrictions at the Santa Fe County Detention Center. Specifically, the defense cites the inability to review documents effectively via Zoom or through glass partitions.
DOJ-OGR-00001299.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes the case for the pre-trial release of a defendant, Mr. Robertson. The Court weighs his history of probation violations and non-violent convictions against the lack of evidence for violent behavior and the government's unsubstantiated claims of witness intimidation. The document emphasizes the legal principle of presumption of innocence in considering Mr. Robertson's danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001297.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on February 6, 2020, regarding 'Mr. Robertson' (Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV). The court discusses the legal standards for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 and finds that Mr. Robertson has successfully rebutted the presumption of detention. Factors cited for his release include his voluntary surrender, family ties, and placement at La Pasada Halfway House.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity