GOVERNMENT
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional witness |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Meder
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
district court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Non agency |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unnamed defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALISON J. NATHAN
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant, our client
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
civilian third party
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Investigative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Juror prosecution |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
federal prosecutor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial prosecution defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane
|
Witness investigator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant/client
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Chief Judge McMahon
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial defendant vs prosecutor |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
BOP
|
Professional separate agencies |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial litigant |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00002293.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, presents an argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense against the joinder of Perjury Counts with Mann Act Counts in her indictment. The defense contends that this joinder would prejudice the jury and that the government is strategically manipulating the timeframes of the alleged conduct (1994-1997) to avoid the legal implications of Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, which the government claims only covers conduct from 2001-2007.
DOJ-OGR-00002293(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, presents an argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The defense argues against the joinder of Perjury Counts with Mann Act Counts, asserting it would create a substantial risk of jury confusion and prejudice Ms. Maxwell. The document also accuses the government of strategically limiting the charges to the 1994-1997 period to avoid the legal implications of Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, while simultaneously trying to introduce conduct from a later period.
DOJ-OGR-00002291.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that Perjury Counts against Ms. Maxwell should not be joined with Mann Act Counts under Rule 8(a) because the connection is illogical, and that they should be severed under Rule 14(a) to prevent substantial prejudice. The defense contends that the perjury charges stem from confusing questions in a separate defamation lawsuit and that a joint trial would improperly force the re-litigation of that civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002291(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that Perjury Counts against Ms. Maxwell should not be joined with Mann Act Counts under Rule 8(a) because the connection is illogical, and that they should be severed under Rule 14(a) to prevent substantial prejudice. The defense contends that the perjury charges stem from confusing questions in a separate defamation lawsuit and that a joint trial would improperly force the re-litigation of that civil matter.
DOJ-OGR-00002290(1).jpg
This document is page 12 of a defense filing (Document 120) from January 2021 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the 'joinder' (combining) of Perjury Counts with Mann Act Counts, stating that Maxwell's alleged false statements in 2016 civil depositions were tangential to the defamation case and not part of a 'common scheme' to obstruct the Mann Act investigation. The defense distinguishes this case from legal precedent (Potamitis), emphasizing that Maxwell did not lie to the FBI or a Grand Jury to derail an investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00002253.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 30, 2020, is a court ruling regarding a defendant's detention. The Court acknowledges the alarming spread of COVID-19 at the MDC facility where the defendant is held but denies release, stating the pandemic is not a sufficient basis to override its finding that the defendant is a substantial flight risk. The Court also notes the defendant has no underlying health conditions and deems a new hearing unnecessary, resolving the matter based on the submitted papers.
DOJ-OGR-00002249.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, discusses a bail application for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It recounts that the Court initially found her financial disclosures incomplete, but she has since provided a more detailed report from a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, and a review by a former IRS agent. Despite the new information, the Court remains unpersuaded that the proposed bail package, secured by $8 million in property and $500,000 in cash, would reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00002246(1).jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for release, focusing on her ties to the United States as a factor in determining flight risk. The court considers letters of support from friends, family, and her spouse, but finds them insufficient to alter its conclusion that she remains a flight risk. The court highlights a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship to argue she has strong ties, despite having claimed she was getting divorced at the time of her arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00002245.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's flight risk. The court concludes that despite the defendant's arguments, factors such as their French citizenship, extraordinary financial resources, international ties, and the difficulty of extradition weigh strongly in favor of continued detention. The court dismisses the defendant's argument about waiving extradition rights as potentially strategic and unpersuasive.
DOJ-OGR-00002242.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from December 30, 2020, outlining the court's decision to support the detention of the Defendant. The court finds the government's case strong, citing witness testimony and evidence like flight records that link the Defendant to Epstein's conduct, and determines the Defendant is a flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships, and extraordinary financial resources.
DOJ-OGR-00002242(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on December 30, 2020, outlines a court's reasoning for denying bail to a defendant. The court finds the government's case, supported by witness testimony and evidence linking the defendant to Epstein, to be strong, creating a flight risk. This risk is further substantiated by the defendant's substantial international ties, foreign property, and significant financial resources, leading the court to conclude that detention is warranted.
DOJ-OGR-00002238(1).jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the Defendant's arguments for release from detention, citing new information such as family ties in the U.S., a detailed financial report, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these arguments, the document concludes with the Court's finding that no conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002233(1).jpg
This document is an Opinion and Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan addresses the defendant's renewed motion for release on bail pending trial, ultimately indicating that the new information solidifies the Court's view that the defendant remains a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00002228(1).jpg
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 23, 2020, argues against the availability of certain bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It posits that a finding of oppression is unlikely given she absconded from the United States, and that human rights claims under the ECHR are also improbable. The document further clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is strictly limited by the Extradition Act 2003 and is not a matter of general discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00002227(1).jpg
This Addendum Opinion, filed on December 23, 2020, addresses matters of English extradition law concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It reaffirms that it is highly unlikely Maxwell could successfully resist extradition to the United States for charges in a July 2020 indictment, and that bail would likely be refused if she had absconded from prior proceedings. The document also notes that Maxwell's waiver of extradition would be admissible but not compel consent, though it would be a relevant factor in contested proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00002216.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's characterization of her finances. The defense contends that Ms. Maxwell has been transparent about her assets, including those shared with her spouse, and that the government's claims of her having 'unrestrained funds' to flee are untrue. The document refutes accusations of hiding assets by pointing to disclosures on joint tax returns and the difficulty of liquidating certain funds.
DOJ-OGR-00002194.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, is a response from the Government arguing that the defendant, housed at the MDC, has adequate resources to prepare for trial. It refutes the defense's claim to the contrary by detailing provisions such as daily VTC calls with counsel, access to discovery on hard drives, and the provision of a dedicated laptop. The document also explains how access to this equipment is managed within the MDC, including during a recent period of quarantine.
DOJ-OGR-00002193.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing for the continued detention of the defendant, asserting she is an extreme flight risk. The Government cites her foreign citizenship in a non-extraditing country, substantial international ties, financial resources, and the seriousness of the charges involving minor victims. The filing also refutes the defense's complaints about the conditions of confinement, stating the defendant has ample time and access to communicate with her counsel and review discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's release by distinguishing her case from precedents where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and aligning it with cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho, and a 2001 case United States v. Epstein). The 'United States v. Epstein' cited here refers to a 2001 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving a defendant with German/Brazilian dual citizenship, used here as legal precedent for denying bail based on lack of extradition treaties.
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text presents a legal argument supporting the detention of the defendant by distinguishing her case from previous instances where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and comparing her to cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho). Notably, it cites a 2001 case, 'United States v. Epstein,' as precedent for denying bail based on dual citizenship and lack of extradition treaties; however, this 2001 citation likely refers to a different defendant named Epstein (in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) rather than Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00002189.jpg
This legal document argues against granting the defendant's proposed bail package by asserting she is a flight risk. The central claim is that the assets securing the bond originated from the defendant herself, who allegedly funneled her wealth to her husband over five years, thereby reducing his personal financial stake and incentive to prevent her from fleeing. The argument is supported by citing the defendant's financial resources, foreign ties, and legal precedent from the Second Circuit regarding bail conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00002189(1).jpg
This legal document argues against granting a defendant's proposed bail package. The central claim is that the defendant has funneled the majority of her wealth to her husband over the past five years, and these are the same assets that would be used for the bail bond. Therefore, the husband would not be losing his own money if the defendant were to flee, diminishing the bond's effectiveness as a deterrent. The argument is supported by citing a Second Circuit ruling against bail systems that create a two-tiered system for wealthy versus non-wealthy defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002183.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's purported waiver of extradition rights from France and the United Kingdom is not a sufficient guarantee against flight risk. It details how the extradition process in the UK is lengthy, uncertain, and subject to judicial and executive discretion, meaning the defendant could still challenge it. The document concludes by citing legal precedent that the difficulty of extradition increases flight risk, thus weighing in favor of detaining the defendant pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002182.jpg
This legal document argues that a defendant's supposed waiver of extradition rights to the United Kingdom is legally unenforceable. It supports this claim by referencing France's strict policy against extraditing its own citizens to the U.S. and by citing the UK's Extradition Act of 2003, which requires a judge to evaluate any such waiver in person with the defendant represented by counsel, rendering anticipatory waivers meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00002182(1).jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against the defendant's bail release by highlighting the risk of non-extradition. The Government asserts that France does not extradite its citizens (citing the 'Peterson' case) and that any anticipatory waiver of extradition to the UK provided by the defendant is unenforceable under the UK Extradition Act of 2003.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity