Relationship Network
EFTA00038901.pdf
This document is an NYPD Special Victims Unit Hotline Notification Worksheet dated January 15, 2022. It details a report received via the Human Trafficking Hotline regarding a mentally ill female victim (CV) who is believed to be sex trafficked. The narrative states the victim, who has the mentality of a 13-year-old, leaves with 'old and rich' men for money and was located at a suspected brothel via Instagram messages.
EFTA00032906.pdf
This document is an 'Access to Justice' email newsletter from Law360 dated April 20, 2020. It aggregates various legal news stories, primarily focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the justice system, including court closures, remote hearings, and bankruptcy issues. It is relevant to the Epstein files because it contains a summary of a recent Eleventh Circuit ruling that the Crime Victims' Rights Act protections do not arise until after a formal criminal charge is filed, which is described as a blow to Epstein's victims.
EFTA00017085.pdf
This document is a formal discovery letter from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) to the defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated August 5, 2020. It lists a comprehensive index of evidence provided to the defense, including financial records from multiple banks (Citibank, Chase, TD Bank, etc.), travel records (flight manifests and airline records), email account records (Oath, Microsoft, Google), and corporate filings (USVI, Delaware). While the document *lists* the existence of flight manifests and financial records, it is an index only and does not contain the specific content (flight paths, transaction amounts) within the document itself.
EFTA00016322.pdf
A screenshot of an Instagram profile page for the username 'ghislainemaxwell6' with the display name 'Ghislainemaxwell'. The profile is shown to have 0 posts, 9 followers, and 0 following accounts at the time the screenshot was taken (8:17 PM). The document bears the ID EFTA00016322.
EFTA00016320.pdf
This document is an Instagram Business Record generated on January 4, 2020, regarding the account 'ghislainemaxwell' (Target ID 1322128817). It confirms the account was registered on May 10, 2014, and was still active at the time of the report, with specific logins recorded on August 14 and 15, 2019, from IP address 104.219.99.170. The report notes that no NCMEC CyberTips or phone numbers were found associated with the account, and the registered email address has been redacted.
EFTA00011096.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on October 13, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The defense argues for individual sequestered voir dire (jury selection questioning) and permission for attorneys to conduct limited questioning of jurors, citing 'tsunami' levels of negative pretrial publicity and the inflammatory nature of the sexual abuse charges. The motion lists numerous documentaries, podcasts, and books as evidence of prejudicial media coverage that allegedly demonizes Maxwell and links her inextricably to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
DOJ-OGR-00008628.jpg
This document is Page 90 of 167 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 3', which strictly prohibits jurors from communicating about the case via any electronic means or social media (listing specific platforms like Facebook and Twitter) and bans outside research. The instruction emphasizes that deliberations must occur only within the jury room and verdicts must be based solely on evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00008548.jpg
This document is page 10 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 3, which strictly prohibits jurors from using social media, the internet, or electronic devices to communicate about the case or conduct outside research during deliberations. The instruction emphasizes that the verdict must be based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00016131.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, in which a judge is instructing the jury on their conduct. The judge strictly prohibits jurors from discussing the case with anyone, including each other, until deliberations, and forbids the use of any electronic devices or social media for communication or research related to the case. The instructions emphasize the need to keep an open mind and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.
DOJ-OGR-00021541.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, details a court's order regarding an inquiry into the truthfulness of answers provided by Juror 50. The court sets a deadline of March 1, 2022, for the parties to submit proposed questions for a hearing. The court denies the Defendant's broad subpoena requests for Juror 50's communications, social media history, and other records, labeling them a "vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition."
DOJ-OGR-00021534.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to examine Juror 50 and other jurors. The defendant's motion was based on Juror 50's social media activity and post-trial statements, as well as a New York Times article alleging another juror had also been a victim of sexual abuse. The Court found the evidence insufficient, deemed the request a "fishing expedition," and took steps to protect juror privacy from media contact and legal inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.
DOJ-OGR-00009057.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details requests for evidence related to potential misconduct by "Juror No. 50." It seeks communications, social media activity, and records of payments to the juror. The document also describes how this juror and another juror, who both allegedly failed to disclose they were victims of childhood sexual abuse, discussed these experiences during deliberations, potentially influencing the verdict rendered by all 12 jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009028.jpg
This document is a court filing from February 2022 containing screenshots of an Instagram account ('thisbeartravels') belonging to Scotty David (identified as Juror No. 50). The posts reveal David publicly discussing his role as a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and mentioning his use of therapy to deal with the stress of the case. The filing notes that Juror No. 50 deleted his social media accounts (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn) shortly after these posts were discovered.
DOJ-OGR-00009027.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, showing a screenshot of a deleted tweet from January 4, 2022. In the tweet, a user 'S' (implied to be Juror No. 50) tells '@anniefarmer' that her story was critical to the jury's verdict. The document also states that Juror No. 50 posted about his jury service on Instagram, raising potential issues of juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009899.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Juror No. 50 should not be granted discovery, specifically a copy of his questionnaire, in advance of a hearing regarding his alleged misconduct. The filing contends that the juror's presence on the jury violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial, constituting a reversible error that should lead the Court to vacate the verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to compel the production of private communications from 'Juror 50', including emails and social media content from platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The author contends that the requests are an improper and invasive 'fishing expedition' that seeks inadmissible evidence, would harass the juror, and could inhibit future jury deliberations. The document urges the Court to reject all of the defendant's specific requests for information regarding the juror's communications, potential media payments, and social media activity.
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that there is no evidence Juror 50 deliberately lied about his social media use, but acknowledges an inconsistency between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to a questionnaire. The Government agrees that a limited evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine if the juror answered falsely and whether it was intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00009818.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes a defendant's claims that a juror, Juror 50, lied during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing argues there is insufficient evidence to prove the juror deliberately lied about not being a victim of a crime or about his social media usage. It specifically addresses the juror's failure to mention an inactive Twitter account and the claim he deleted his Facebook and Instagram accounts, suggesting these were not material or deliberate falsehoods.
DOJ-OGR-00009748.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on March 11, 2022, outlines a request for evidence related to potential misconduct by "Juror No. 50". It seeks communications, social media activity, and records of payments to the juror regarding their jury service. The document also discusses a hearing concerning the misconduct, which involves another juror who also allegedly failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, potentially implicating the entire jury's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009744.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' provided false answers during voir dire regarding social media usage to hide biases and ensure selection, noting he later used Twitter to contact victim Annie Farmer and appeared in an ITV documentary. The text contrasts this behavior with Juror No. 55, whose falsehoods were exposed through follow-up questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers during voir dire, particularly concerning his use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The document contends that this pattern of dishonesty, combined with his post-trial media engagement, casts doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including those meant to screen for bias against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It also mentions a letter from the government, published by the media, which is described as an attempt to silence the juror and circumvent court rules.
DOJ-OGR-00009735.jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed on March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for a new trial based on the alleged dishonesty of Juror No. 50 during voir dire, specifically regarding social media usage (Twitter/Instagram) and a failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense draws a parallel to Juror No. 55, who was dismissed for cause after similar dishonesty regarding Twitter was discovered.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity