W.D.N.Y.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001707.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 38) dated August 10, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues for the pretrial disclosure of the identities of 'Victims 1-3,' citing legal precedents that a defendant's right to prepare a defense outweighs privacy interests when a protective order is in place. The filing asserts that because the victims are now adults and many have already spoken publicly or filed civil suits against Epstein and Maxwell, there is no risk of intimidation.
DOJ-OGR-00001221.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition, likely in the context of Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The author argues that the defendant has not provided cases where such waivers are enforceable and cites several past court decisions (e.g., Epstein, Morrison, Stroh) where courts have deemed such waivers unenforceable, invalid until a formal request is made, or an 'empty gesture'. The document contrasts these with cases cited by the defense (e.g., Cirillo, Salvagno) where waivers were considered but were not the central factor in the court's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00000959.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 16, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. court cases, primarily criminal cases with the United States as a party, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cited cases span from 1978 to 2020 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 22, 2021, that discusses the legal standards for pretrial detention and the reopening of bail hearings. It references the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), which allows for reopening a hearing with new, material information, and also cites case law (Raniere, Havens, Rowe, Petrov) to establish that a court has inherent authority to reconsider its own bail decisions even without new evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues against allowing the Government to bypass the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by moving jurisdictions ('parachuting into a new circuit'). It cites various legal precedents to argue that the court should apply the law of the circuit where the violation or agreement occurred (referencing the 11th Circuit) to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights in the plea-bargaining process.
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
DOJ-OGR-00020713.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between February 11 and February 24, 2022. It details motions for a new trial filed by the defense, communications regarding redactions to protect juror anonymity (specifically Juror 50), and the granting of an amicus curiae brief. The document lists correspondence between the prosecution (USA), the defense team (Sternheim, Everdell), and Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00020568.jpg
This legal document is a court docket summary from July 2022, detailing filings and orders from February 2022 in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries, primarily orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan, concern procedural matters like redactions and amicus briefs. The most significant action is the Court's order for an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, a matter which could impact the validity of the trial's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020467.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from February 2022 for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details several procedural orders regarding motions for a new trial, redactions to protect juror privacy, and the filing of an amicus brief. The most significant entry is an order granting an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, while denying a broader hearing involving other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00002244.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the legal arguments concerning the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text cites various legal precedents, noting that while some defendants have offered such waivers, courts have often not ruled on their enforceability or have deemed them unenforceable, as in the Epstein case where it was called an "empty gesture." The document highlights the significant legal uncertainty surrounding whether a foreign country would enforce such a waiver, making it a contentious point in the defendant's case against extradition to the United States.
DOJ-OGR-00002244(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses the enforceability of an anticipatory waiver of extradition in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It contrasts different legal precedents, citing cases where such waivers were considered unenforceable or an 'empty gesture' (e.g., United States v. Epstein) against others where they were conditions of release, though their enforceability was not explicitly determined. The document highlights the legal ambiguity surrounding whether a foreign country, like France, would honor such a waiver.
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00002179.jpg
This legal document argues that pre-release waivers of extradition are unenforceable and meaningless because any defendant who flees will inevitably contest the waiver's validity. The author cites numerous court cases, including United States v. Epstein, to support the claim that such waivers are merely an "empty gesture." The document also refutes the defense's counterarguments by distinguishing the specific factual circumstances of the cases they rely upon.
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
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-00008976.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 24, 2022. The order approves the defendant's proposed redactions to court documents, finding they are necessary to protect juror anonymity and privacy. The court orders the parties to file the redacted briefs and other materials by February 25, 2022, and also states it will docket a motion from 'Juror 50'.
DOJ-OGR-00010700.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that federal courts have extremely broad and largely unlimited authority to consider information about a defendant during sentencing. It cites legal precedents and the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states 'no limitation' shall be placed on such information. The document specifically mentions that crucial information about an individual named Maxwell's 'background, character, and conduct' was possessed by two other individuals, Sarah and Elizabeth.
DOJ-OGR-00010421.jpg
This document is page 4 of a 29-page legal filing (Document 662) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on June 15, 2022. It is a table of authorities listing various court cases, statutes such as the 'Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998', and other sources like the Merriam-Webster dictionary and United States Sentencing Guidelines. The page numbers where these authorities are cited within the main document are also provided.
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, characterizing it as a 'fishing expedition.' Additionally, the Court rules that 'Juror 50' will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire and that the document must be unsealed (docketed), rejecting the Defendant's argument that this would taint the juror's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely *US v. Maxwell*) denying the Defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for Juror 50's communications. The Court rules that the request is a 'fishing expedition' and procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which generally prohibits private parties (like the Defendant) from subpoenaing content from providers like Facebook or Instagram; only the Government may do so with a warrant.
DOJ-OGR-00003116.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), filed on April 16, 2021. The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss, citing legal precedents (United States v. Young, Edwards v. Mazzuca) to establish that specific dates are not required in indictments regarding sexual abuse of minors due to memory limitations of victims. The text specifically highlights 'Minor Victim-1' who suffered abuse over multiple years, arguing that a timeframe is sufficient for the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00002958.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204) filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous legal cases, primarily with the United States as the plaintiff, along with their full legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited are from various federal courts and span several decades, serving as legal precedent for the arguments made in the filing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity