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-00001394.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, requests a 90-day continuance for her trial, originally set for July 12, 2021. The defense argues that the government's recent disclosure of 226 witnesses necessitates more time for investigation and preparation. The request is made reluctantly, acknowledging it will prolong Ms. Maxwell's 'miserable and punishing detention'.
DOJ-OGR-00001391.jpg
This page from a legal filing by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim argues that recent voluminous discovery materials, including witness interviews, contain exculpatory information for Ms. Maxwell that requires significant time to investigate. The defense disputes the government's claim that no additional time is needed, asserting that millions of pages from Epstein's devices, previously irrelevant, are now pertinent due to the expanded scope of the superseding indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00001382.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the U.S. Government's description of inmate Ms. Maxwell's prison conditions is false. It counters claims of amenities by detailing harsh realities such as sleep deprivation from guards' actions, solitary confinement, unsanitary conditions, and inadequate resources for trial preparation. The filing asserts the government's information is based on unreliable, multi-layered hearsay from prison staff to the prosecutor.
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
This legal filing argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell is weak because the anonymous accusers' stories are contradictory, uncorroborated, and fabricated for money and fame, only emerging after Epstein's death. The document also contends that the district judge erred by accepting the indictment as proof of a strong case and that the government's reliance on legal precedents is misplaced due to a lack of meaningful evidence presented.
DOJ-OGR-00001369.jpg
This legal document, dated April 15, 2021, is a motion filed by attorney Christian R. Everdell on behalf of the law firm Cohen & Gresser LLP. The firm requests to be relieved as counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell in her appeals, stating that she has retained new counsel, Mr. Markus. The document also notes that the government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, does not oppose this change in representation.
DOJ-OGR-00001339.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated April 12, 2021, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's request for temporary release. It asserts that Judge Nathan did not abuse discretion in denying release because Maxwell has ample resources, including 'highly qualified' counsel and extensive access to computers (13 hours/day) to review discovery at the MDC. Footnotes clarify legal precedents and note that in-person attorney visitation at the MDC resumed in February 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001336.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Judge Nathan's decision-making was proper and based on substantial evidence provided by the Government. It refutes arguments from the defendant, Maxwell, particularly her claim that she was not hiding from law enforcement, citing the judge's finding that Maxwell demonstrated an "extraordinary capacity to evade detection."
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed by the Government on April 12, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-770). The text argues against Maxwell's appeal regarding her bail denial, asserting that she poses a flight risk due to foreign ties and wealth, and defending the lower court's use of 'proffers' (evidence summaries) rather than full evidentiary hearings for bail determinations, citing Second Circuit precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00001333.jpg
This legal document, page 16 of a filing dated April 12, 2021, outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention. It specifies the factors a court must consider when the government seeks detention for flight risk, as laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The document also details the 'deferential review' standard for appealing a detention order and the conditions under which a judicial officer may permit temporary release of a detained individual.
DOJ-OGR-00001327.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 12, 2021. It details Judge Nathan's findings that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her extraordinary financial resources, multiple foreign citizenships, and lack of employment. The text notes that despite letters of support and offers to waive extradition rights, the court found the risk of flight fundamentally unchanged and the case against her strong.
DOJ-OGR-00001324.jpg
This legal document details Judge Nathan's reasoning for denying bail to Maxwell. The judge found that the government had proven Maxwell is a substantial flight risk, citing her failure to provide her whereabouts, her significant and opaque financial resources, and her demonstrated sophistication in hiding herself and her assets. Consequently, Judge Nathan concluded that even the most restrictive release conditions would be insufficient to ensure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
This legal document is a court order from March 22, 2021, reaffirming the decision to detain a defendant. The Court concludes that the Government has shown the defendant is a flight risk and that no proposed conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. The Court's assessment of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including the presumption of detention and the weight of the evidence, remains unchanged despite the defendant's new arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00001250.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's proposed bail conditions, asserting that her financial proposal is vague and would leave her with ample resources (over $3.5 million plus future income) to flee prosecution. The filing contends that the proposed financial monitorship creates a conflict of interest and that the defendant's pending pretrial motions do not weaken the strength of the government's case. The author urges the Court to reject the defendant's proposal, concluding she remains a significant flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001249.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should reject the defendant's proposed monitorship condition for her release from detention. The Government contends the proposal is insufficient because the defendant has a history of lacking candor about her finances, possesses significant international ties, and would retain control over substantial unrestrained assets, such as a $2 million townhouse in London. The filing emphasizes that the defendant remains a flight risk, a concern heightened by the previously established difficulty and length of any potential extradition process.
DOJ-OGR-00001247.jpg
This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's request for bail. The government contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom is not a reliable guarantee against her fleeing the country, as the renunciation could be legally challenged later and does not prevent flight to a third country without an extradition treaty. The filing cites precedent from a similar case (United States v. Cohen) to argue that such offers should be given little weight and that the court's prior decision to detain the defendant should stand.
DOJ-OGR-00001246.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The author, likely the prosecution (Government), contends that the defendant remains an extreme flight risk due to strong evidence, substantial resources, and foreign ties to a non-extraditing country. The document dismisses the defendant's new proposals—renouncing foreign citizenship and placing some assets under monitorship—as insufficient to ensure their appearance in court and urges the motion to be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00001245.jpg
This legal document is a filing, likely by the government, arguing that the district court should deny the defendant's 'Third Bail Motion'. The primary argument is that the court lacks jurisdiction because the defendant has a simultaneous bail appeal pending in the Second Circuit. A secondary argument is that even if jurisdiction existed, the motion should be denied because the court has already twice found the defendant to be a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00001237.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 23, 2021, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text outlines that Maxwell has renounced her foreign citizenship (France/UK) to address extradition concerns and proposes a strict asset monitoring system where all liquid assets belonging to her and her spouse will be moved to a 'New Account' overseen by a court-appointed monitor. This is intended to mitigate the Court's fear that her wealth could be used to facilitate flight.
DOJ-OGR-00001220.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion, concerning a bail motion for a defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court reaffirms its conclusion that the defendant is a flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), and connections abroad. The document analyzes the defendant's offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK, noting that the legal weight of such waivers is contested, particularly in light of a letter from the French Ministry of Justice stating that French law "absolutely prohibits" the extradition of its nationals.
DOJ-OGR-00001219.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court argues that the government's case is strong, citing anticipated testimony from three witnesses regarding the enticement of minors and corroborating flight records linking the Defendant to Epstein. The court concludes that the strength of the case creates a flight risk, supported by the Defendant's international ties, foreign citizenships, and significant financial resources.
DOJ-OGR-00001211.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's renewed motion for release on bail. The court justifies the denial by citing the seriousness of the charges (facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse), strong government evidence, the defendant's substantial financial resources, foreign ties to a non-extradition country, and a lack of candor about her finances, concluding she is a flight risk. The document outlines the case's background, including the indictment on June 29, 2020, her arrest on July 2, 2020, and the denial of her first bail motion on July 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00001207.jpg
This legal document analyzes the potential bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell from the UK to the US. It argues that bars related to oppression or human rights (Article 8 of the ECHR) are unlikely to be available to her, especially given that she absconded from the United States. The document also clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 is not discretionary but is limited to specific statutory grounds.
DOJ-OGR-00001206.jpg
This document is an addendum to a legal opinion concerning the potential extradition of Ghislaine Maxwell from England and Wales to the United States. It reaffirms the original opinion's conclusions that her extradition is highly likely, bail would almost certainly be denied, and she would be unable to successfully resist extradition based on the charges in a July 2020 indictment. The addendum also clarifies the relevance of a potential waiver of extradition in UK legal proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001170.jpg
This document is page 28 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on December 18, 2020. The Government argues against granting the defendant's bail package, asserting that she has transferred the majority of her wealth to her husband over the last five years, meaning any bond posted by him would essentially be her own money, reducing the 'moral suasion' preventing flight. The document cites legal precedent (United States v. Boustani) rejecting a 'two-tiered bail system' that favors wealthy defendants who can afford private security.
DOJ-OGR-00001168.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The prosecution contends that the defendant is a significant flight risk because a new financial report reveals she has approximately $22 million in assets, far more than previously disclosed, including a $2 million London townhouse and over $4 million in unrestrained funds. The Government further argues that the bond is effectively worthless because two proposed co-signers are UK residents, against whom the bond could not be realistically recovered if the defendant were to flee.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity