The district court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The District Court’s Decision | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | The district court issued an order regarding Ms. Maxwell's detention conditions. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001410.jpg
This legal document, dated May 17, 2021, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, a pre-trial detainee. It argues that the horrific conditions of her confinement—including sleep deprivation, contaminated water, surveillance of legal meetings, and overflowing sewage—make it impossible for her to prepare for trial. The filing renews a motion for bond and relief, referencing a prior district court order that admonished the Bureau of Prisons and the MDC to apply only necessary and standard security protocols.
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-00000920.jpg
This legal document is a page from a filing arguing that the district court erred in denying bail to Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that the court improperly relied on the government's weak and unsubstantiated allegations, which are based on old, anonymous hearsay. The document concludes by asserting that Ms. Maxwell should be granted bail or the case should be remanded.
DOJ-OGR-00021052.jpg
This document is page 'iv' of a 113-page legal filing, specifically Document 59 in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. The page is a table of contents outlining legal arguments concerning standard of review, procedural errors, and the District Court's application of a sentencing adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1.
DOJ-OGR-00021854.jpg
This legal document page describes the conclusion of a criminal trial where the defendant, Maxwell, was found guilty on December 29, 2021, on multiple counts related to sexual abuse. The document highlights a post-verdict issue concerning Juror 50, who revealed in press interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, contradicting his 'no' answers to related questions on his pre-trial jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021801.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, detailing the procedural history of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes the jury selection process, the guilty verdict delivered on December 29, 2021, and a specific controversy regarding 'Juror 50,' who publicly disclosed being a sexual abuse survivor after the trial despite denying victimization on the jury questionnaire. Footnotes clarify the specific legal counts Maxwell was convicted on (sex trafficking, etc.) and those acquitted or dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg
This page from a legal appeal (Case 22-1426) argues that the District Court erred in sentencing Ghislaine Maxwell by applying a leadership enhancement. The defense contends there is no evidence Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, noting that the Government chose not to indict Kellen and that pilots testified they did not know who Kellen worked for. The document requests that Maxwell be resentenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021767.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable limitations on the questioning of Juror 50 during a post-verdict hearing. The filing contends that this prevented the defense for Ms. Maxwell from fully exploring the juror's potential bias, which was evidenced when he disclosed his own history of sexual assault to fellow jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations and the final verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021744.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. The filing presents two main arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell: first, that a non-prosecution agreement makes her a third-party beneficiary and bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and second, that the District Court erred by not removing Juror 50 for cause after the juror provided dishonest testimony and concealed information about being a victim of child sex abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021651.jpg
This document is page iii of a table of contents from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines legal arguments concerning specific criminal counts involving sexual abuse of a child, a challenge to a legal approach by someone named Maxwell, and an appeal regarding the District Court's decision to not disqualify Juror 50 despite mistakes on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021649.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of the filing, which includes the government's case detailing the alleged sexual abuse of six individuals (Jane, Kate, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Carolyn, and Melissa) and a legal argument regarding whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement bars the prosecution of Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00019401.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 60, Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The filing's primary argument is that Judge Nathan incorrectly refused to modify a protective order, which would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to share sealed material information with Judge Preska. The document outlines the structure of the legal brief, including the case history, jurisdictional statements, and the specific points of the argument.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017831.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Supplement (349 F. Supp. 2d 766) summarizing legal holdings by Judge Casey regarding civil litigation stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The page outlines 17 specific holdings concerning jurisdiction, sovereign immunity (FSIA), and liability regarding claims brought by survivors and insurance carriers against Saudi Arabia, Saudi Princes, banks, and charities alleged to have supported Al Qaeda. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation, though the content specifically concerns 9/11 litigation rather than Jeffrey Epstein directly.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity