S.D.N.Y
LocationRelationship Network
EFTA00024829.pdf
An email chain from November 29, 2021, between employees of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The correspondence concerns updating the 'Ghislaine Maxwell victim page' on the DOJ website with new information regarding trial attendance, specifically noting that the trial (jury selection) began that day. The update outlines strict COVID-19 protocols for the courthouse and clarifies that victim access is coordinated by specific Victim-Witness Coordinators.
EFTA00015654.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 29, 2021, between court executives at the Southern District of New York regarding the start of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Edward Friedland requests an urgent update to the court's website to remove outdated phone access information, noting that the trial is in-person only with no broadcast or dial-in. The correspondence includes draft text for the website detailing victim attendance coordination, public access via overflow rooms, and strict COVID-19 entry protocols.
EFTA00010943.pdf
This document is an email chain from November 29, 2021, between Edward Friedland (District Court Executive) and Joseph Pecorino regarding public information for the *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell* trial. The correspondence focuses on correcting outdated website information that suggested phone access to the trial was available, clarifying that access is in-person only due to court orders. They draft and approve a public notice detailing victim attendance coordination, the lack of broadcast/dial-in options, and strict COVID-19 entry protocols for the courthouse.
EFTA00010941.pdf
This document contains an email chain from November 29, 2021, between SDNY District Court Executive Edward Friedland, Joseph Pecorino, and others regarding public information for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The emails discuss correcting outdated website information that incorrectly suggested telephonic access to the trial and approving the text for a notice about victim attendance and COVID-19 protocols. The text confirms that the trial began on that date with jury selection and outlines strict in-person attendance rules.
DOJ-OGR-00015080.jpg
This is a legal filing (Page 2 of 4) dated August 4, 2025, submitted by the Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer regarding the unsealing of documents in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government addresses Court orders requiring them to identify specific grand jury exhibits and transcripts for public release, noting that trial exhibits are presumptively public. The Government requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to advise the Court on its position regarding the unsealing of grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00001301.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court filing (Case 4:17-cr-02949-MV) dated February 3, 2021. It argues for the pretrial release of a defendant named Mr. Robertson under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) to allow him to prepare for his trial scheduled for April 5, 2021. The text cites various legal precedents regarding temporary release for defense preparation. Note: While the user requested an 'Epstein-related' analysis, this specific page pertains to a 'Mr. Robertson' and does not contain direct text references to Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00001236.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 28, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. Her defense proposes two additional conditions to assure the court she is not a flight risk, specifically offering to formally renounce her citizenships in France and the United Kingdom and surrender all passports. The defense argues that giving up citizenship, described as a 'precious and priceless asset,' demonstrates her commitment to appearing in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001000.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell based on the case number) dated June 15, 2020. It provides a string citation of legal precedents from the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) where judges denied pre-trial bail to defendants during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the defendants citing various health conditions like asthma and diabetes. The text argues that health risks alone have not been sufficient grounds for release in recent comparable cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000283.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 11, 2019, arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. Defense counsel argues that home confinement with 24-hour private armed guards—paid for by Epstein—is the 'least restrictive' condition to assure his appearance, citing precedents like Bernie Madoff and Marc Dreier. The filing addresses the Judge's potential concerns about wealthy defendants 'buying their way out' of jail, arguing that denying this option based on wealth raises equal protection concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00002363.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Document 134) in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text presents a legal argument requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a redacted source (likely civil depositions) and the dismissal of Counts Five and Six. The argument focuses on the sanctity of protective orders in civil litigation, asserting that the depositions intrusively probed Maxwell's sexual practices, preferences, and partners in what began as a defamation case.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(2).jpg
This document is Page 6 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues that Counts Five and Six (perjury charges) should be dismissed because they rely on evidence obtained through an unlawful grand jury subpoena that violated a Protective Order in the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The document asserts the government proceeded 'ex parte' to avoid contestation.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(1).jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on February 4, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team seeking to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena and to dismiss perjury charges (Counts Five and Six). The defense argues that the government unlawfully circumvented a Protective Order from the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* by issuing a subpoena and proceeding *ex parte* to prevent the accuracy of their representations from being contested. The recipient of the subpoena and specific details of the government's arguments are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00002281(1).jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities page (Page 3 of 19) from a court filing dated January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists twenty-one legal precedents (cases) cited in the brief, primarily from the Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit, covering dates from 1964 to 2011. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002281.
DOJ-OGR-00022066.jpg
This document is page 'iii' of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing dated April 24, 2020, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (which corresponds to USA v. Parnas et al., though released in a DOJ OGR batch). It lists numerous legal precedents (case law citations) primarily from the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York, referencing cases such as U.S. v. Coppa, U.S. v. Ghailani, and others used to support legal arguments in the main brief.
DOJ-OGR-00019559.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on August 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order, reaffirming that discovery materials produced by the Government must be used solely for the defense of the criminal action and not for any civil proceedings. The text cites Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) and various legal precedents regarding 'good cause' for protective orders.
DOJ-OGR-00019516.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 32) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government argues against the defendant's request to publicly name individuals who have identified themselves as victims of Epstein or the defendant, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and legal precedents (Paris, Corley, Kelly) regarding privacy and safety. The Government advocates for a protective order that requires the use of pseudonyms (e.g., 'Victim-1') in public filings while allowing the defense to use names in sealed filings and internal investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 28) dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for a specific provision in a protective order regarding victim/witness identities. Maxwell's defense contends that they should be permitted to reference alleged victims who have already voluntarily disclosed their identities in public records or media, arguing that the government's proposed restrictions are overly broad and hinder the defense's ability to investigate and advocate.
DOJ-OGR-00019405.jpg
This page outlines the statement of the case and facts regarding Ms. Maxwell, detailing a six-count superseding indictment involving conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein and perjury. It also summarizes the background of the civil defamation case Giuffre v. Maxwell, which was settled and dismissed in 2017.
DOJ-OGR-00019273.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket for Case 20-3061, detailing filings between July 28 and July 30, 2020, involving Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes an affidavit by Alex Rossmiller, correspondence regarding a protective order, and a detailed Memorandum Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan establishing the terms of that protective order. The order addresses disputes over Ms. Maxwell's ability to publicly reference alleged victims and restrictions on the use of discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00009194.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iv') of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing legal precedents, specifically Second Circuit Court of Appeals cases, and Federal Rules (likely related to a motion for a new trial given the citation of Rule 33 and evidence rules regarding juror testimony). The page also cites an article by Jeremy Peterson regarding show trials.
DOJ-OGR-00009111.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 614) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues that modern jurors in high-profile trials are incentivized to lie during voir dire to gain fame and profit, contrasting this with historical adherence to oaths. It cites interviews with jurors from the Derek Chauvin and Harvey Weinstein trials as evidence of jurors seeking media attention.
DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg
This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00019768.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from March 2021 detailing proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Maxwell's third motion for bail and issuing an order regarding the defense's attempt to subpoena a law firm representing alleged victims. Maxwell subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the bail denial.
DOJ-OGR-00009839.jpg
This document is page 41 of a legal filing (Document 643, filed March 11, 2022) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents legal arguments citing precedents (Guzman Loera, Bin Laden, Martha Stewart) to oppose an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations based solely on unsworn media reports. The filing argues that newspaper articles and hearsay do not constitute 'incontrovertible evidence' required to justify post-trial juror inquiries.
DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page (page 'vi') from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the filing, primarily from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York. The page does not contain narrative details regarding Epstein's activities but rather serves as a legal reference list for arguments made in the full brief.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity