GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
15
Very Strong
|
29 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
62 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
55 | |
|
person
Recipient
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
THOMAS
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
Defense counsel
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Thomas
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Minor Victims
|
Protective |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Epstein's counsel
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's motion to compel discovery from the Government, including Jencks Act, Brady, Giglio mat... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court's ruling on Maxwell's discovery requests, concluding she is not entitled to expedited disco... | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court accepts Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material. | Court proceedings | View |
| N/A | N/A | Accusation by the government that Epstein paid Maxwell millions for recruiting young, underage wo... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's intention to produce 'Materials' to the defendant (Maxwell) under a protective order... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Argument that defendants should be able to rely on government promises in written agreements and ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss Mann Act counts for lack of specificity or to compel Government to s... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Broader investigation into Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, covering periods beyond the Indictment. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government's review of 'Materials' (documents and photographs) related to Epstein's sexual abuse ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment due to alleged actual prejudice from Government's delay i... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte proceeding where government allegedly misled Chief Judge McMahon to obtain a subpoena. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Client's arrest and detention despite voluntary surrender. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of discovery timeline, with the government requesting until November. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government initiated a massive OPR investigation into the execution of the NPA. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court agrees that some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated but acknowledges defamation action re... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) not disclosed to victims | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Search warrants executed at properties of Jeffrey Epstein. | New York and Virgin Islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify victims under the § 2255 provisio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Depositions taken as a result of government-supported civil suits against the speaker. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Indictment of Thomas | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening of Grand Jury Investigation | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing regarding fines, restitution, and guideline calculations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Planned resolution of pending redaction issues | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Victims' lawsuit against the government | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ex parte modification of the protective order by Judge McMahon. | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001665.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, is the government's argument against a defendant's request to publicly name victims of herself or Epstein. The government contends that such disclosure is inappropriate and violates victims' rights to privacy and safety, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and several legal precedents. The filing supports a proposed protective order that would prevent public identification of victims while still allowing the defense to prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001657.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on July 27, 2020, detailing the strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials. It specifies that the Defendant and their legal team are restricted in how they can review, possess, copy, and file this information, requiring authorization from the Government or the Court for public disclosure. The order also mandates that all discovery materials be returned or destroyed at the end of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00001655.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 29-1) from July 27, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines strict protocols for the handling of discovery materials, specifically those designated as 'Highly Confidential Information.' It details that the Defendant may only review materials in the presence of counsel or BOP officials, and sets rules for showing materials to potential defense witnesses via read-only means without providing physical copies.
DOJ-OGR-00001637.jpg
This legal document, dated July 21, 2020, is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that recent public statements by the government have been prejudicial to her right to a fair trial. It specifically cites a press conference held by Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss on July 2, 2020, following Maxwell's arrest, quoting her statements from the New York Law Journal and the Washington Post as evidence of improper commentary on Maxwell's credibility and guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00001635.jpg
This is a legal letter dated July 21, 2020, from Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., to Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New York. The attorney, representing defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, requests that the court issue an order prohibiting the U.S. Government and its affiliates from making extrajudicial statements about the case, arguing such statements are prejudicial and violate Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001619.jpg
This document is page 9 of a government filing (Document 22) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 13, 2020. The text argues that the defendant is a significant flight risk, citing her demonstrated skill at living in hiding and her steps to conceal herself after Jeffrey Epstein's indictment. The government contends that her decision to remain in the US previously does not mitigate the risk now that she faces a six-count indictment and the reality of a potential lengthy prison sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00001562.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 9, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order establishes procedures for court proceedings amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting seating to approximately 60 people on a first-come, first-served basis and outlining how counsel and the press can make seating requests. The document strictly prohibits any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of the proceedings, warning that violations may result in fines, sanctions, or denial of entry to future hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00001495.jpg
This legal document argues that 'the defendant' presents a clear risk of flight due to international connections, significant financial means, and a transient lifestyle. The defendant has been in hiding since an indictment against Epstein was unsealed in July 2019, making efforts to avoid detection, including an all-cash property purchase in December 2019 through an anonymized LLC. The document concludes that home confinement with electronic monitoring would be inadequate to prevent the defendant from fleeing.
DOJ-OGR-00001491.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for the pre-trial detention of a defendant. The prosecution (Government) asserts that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and cannot overcome the statutory presumption for detention, citing the nature of the alleged crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The document references specific U.S. statutes and case law to support its argument that detention is warranted.
DOJ-OGR-00001461.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, refutes claims made by an inmate named Maxwell regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC. It distinguishes her situation from a case involving Tiffany Days, who experienced sewage flooding at a different facility (the MCC), and argues there is no evidence of such issues at the MDC. The document also counters Maxwell's claim of being in "solitary confinement" by detailing her daily access to a day room and various amenities for thirteen hours.
DOJ-OGR-00001459.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial release and confinement conditions. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove MDC security protocols interfere with her trial preparation and addresses specific disputes regarding 'nighttime checks' with flashlights and the use of eye coverings. A lengthy footnote clarifies a previous inaccuracy regarding Maxwell's use of an eye mask and defends the Government against accusations of misrepresentation.
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001453.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated May 27, 2021, that outlines the applicable law regarding pretrial detention. It details the Government's burden to prove a defendant is a flight risk and discusses the statutory presumption of detention for specific offenses, such as those involving a minor victim. The document cites U.S. statutes and previous case law (United States v. Sabhnani and United States v. Mercedes) to support its legal arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00001452.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 21-770) dated May 27, 2021, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's motion should be denied. It details Judge Nathan's previous findings that MDC security protocols, such as night monitoring and eye mask prohibitions, do not interfere with Maxwell's trial preparation or legal communications. The text notes that the appellate court has already affirmed previous orders denying Maxwell bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001449.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing from May 27, 2021, related to Case 21-770 regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the procedural history of Maxwell's failed appeals for bail/pretrial release and the court's affirmation of Judge Nathan's decisions on April 27, 2021. The text specifically highlights Maxwell's complaints regarding her conditions of confinement at the MDC, specifically '15-minute light surveillance,' and notes that the appellate court directed such specific relief requests back to the District Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001447.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by a defendant named Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the Court and Pretrial Services. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001445.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 21-770, dated May 27, 2021) outlines the Government's argument for the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell. It references three denied bail applications and details a specific hearing on July 14, 2020, where Judge Nathan ruled Maxwell a flight risk based on strong evidence and the nature of the offenses. The document highlights that the indictment is supported by three victim-witnesses, corroborated by flight records and diaries.
DOJ-OGR-00001443.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, outlines the procedural history of defendant Maxwell's attempts to secure pretrial release. It details how Judge Nathan denied her bail applications on December 28, 2020, and March 22, 2021, and how the Court affirmed these denials on April 27, 2021. The document also notes that Maxwell filed another renewed motion on May 17, 2021, and that her trial is scheduled to begin on November 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001442.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement outlining the timeline of Ghislaine Maxwell's indictment and arrest in the summer of 2020. It details the six counts against her, including conspiracy to entice minors and perjury, and notes that United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denied her bail following a hearing on July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001422.jpg
This document is an appendix from a legal filing in Case 21-770, dated May 17, 2021. It lists several court orders and filings from April and May 2021 related to Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The document is respectfully submitted and signed by her attorneys, Leah S. Saffian and David Oscar Markus.
DOJ-OGR-00001416.jpg
This legal document excerpt details the defense's arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding her treatment at MDC Brooklyn. The defense claims the government and court are unfairly handling evidence, specifically a videotape of an incident that would allegedly disprove statements made by MDC staff. The document also highlights the defense's frustration with the court's dismissal of their complaints about jail conditions, such as guards flashing a light in Ms. Maxwell's cell every 15 minutes.
DOJ-OGR-00001413.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the government misrepresented the nature of its treatment of inmate Ms. Maxwell. The filing claims the government initially told the court that flashlight checks every 15 minutes were a routine procedure by the Bureau of Prisons, but later admitted in a letter that these checks were targeted only at Ms. Maxwell. The document asserts this special treatment is unjustified and an attempt by the government to mislead the court.
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-00001399.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. The letter details severe sanitary issues including mold, vermin, and undrinkable tap water, as well as restrictive legal visitation conditions that impede attorney-client privilege. It also notes Maxwell's deteriorating health and lack of access to fresh air for eight months.
DOJ-OGR-00001395.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 19, 2021, by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues for a continuance (delay) of the trial for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's proposed trial schedule is unrealistic, especially given a recent second superseding indictment, and that proceeding would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights. The filing also notes the prejudicial impact of Ms. Maxwell's continued detention and ongoing media coverage, and mentions an upcoming bail appeal hearing in the Second Circuit.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity