SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00003026.jpg
This court document outlines the procedural history of the civil litigation between Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell, including deposition dates in 2016 and a settlement in 2017. It details how the USAO-SDNY formally opened its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirators in late November 2018, explicitly crediting Julie K. Brown's reporting in the Miami Herald as the catalyst. The document also clarifies that a specific prosecutor, 'AUSA-1', was not involved in opening this 2018 investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
This legal document, filed by the prosecution, refutes the defendant's (Maxwell's) motion which alleges collusion between the law firm Boies Schiller and the U.S. Government. The prosecution argues that the defendant's narrative is false, stating that the perjury investigation began in late 2018, years after the meetings between Boies Schiller and a former AUSA, and that this AUSA had no involvement in the decision to open the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00002984.jpg
This document is page 23 of a government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing against her motions to dismiss. The prosecution asserts that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Southern District of Florida does not apply to the current indictment or district, and denies her request for discovery due to lack of evidence. Furthermore, the document argues that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 because the statute allows prosecution for child sexual abuse offenses as long as the victims are alive, rejecting Maxwell's argument that the statute applies only prospectively.
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002964.jpg
This legal document is an argument by the prosecution against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant to the current case. The key reasons are that the defendant was not a party to the NPA, the agreement is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (where the case is being tried), and the NPA does not provide immunity for the specific crimes with which the defendant is charged.
DOJ-OGR-00002962.jpg
This document is a preliminary statement from the U.S. Government in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 16, 2021. The Government submits this memorandum to oppose twelve pre-trial motions filed by the defendant on January 25, 2021. The statement outlines the Government's arguments for denying the motions, asserting that they lack support in fact or law and addressing specific points such as the irrelevance of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and the timeliness of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00002957.jpg
This document is page xxii 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 from 'United States v. Schafrick' to 'United States v. Swanson,' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the main document. The cases cited span from 1972 to 2015 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002954.jpg
This document is page 'xix' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing various United States court cases, from Nitsche to Quinones, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1974 to 2018 and originate from several federal courts, including district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.
DOJ-OGR-00002953.jpg
This document is page 19 of 239 from Document 204 filed on April 16, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It is a Table of Authorities page (numbered xviii) listing legal precedents cited in the filing, specifically cases beginning with 'United States v.' followed by names starting with M through N. It contains standard legal citations and page references for the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002948.jpg
This document is page xiii from a legal filing, specifically a Table of Authorities from Document 204 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited within the larger document, providing the case name, legal citation, and the page numbers where each case is referenced. The cases listed involve the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00002946.jpg
This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00002936.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. The filing appears to be a response from the prosecution arguing against motions made by the defendant, Maxwell. Key arguments outlined include the irrelevance of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement to this case, the timeliness of the indictment, and reasons why the defendant's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00002935.jpg
This is the cover page for the Government's Omnibus Memorandum opposing the defendant's pre-trial motions in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case S1 20 Cr. 330). The document was filed on April 16, 2021, in the Southern District of New York, and lists the prosecution team led by U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss.
DOJ-OGR-00004809.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 1, 2021, is a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The government requests that the Court issue an order compelling Mr. Markus (presumably defense counsel) to comply with Local Rule 23.1 regarding trial publicity. The letter argues that an Op-Ed published by Mr. Markus and his continued comments violate a previous court order and are likely to interfere with the Court's ability to conduct a fair trial with an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00004806.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on July 1, 2021. The order lifts the temporary seal on a previous opinion regarding Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence. It also unseals a memorandum decision, an order, and hearing transcripts from a related civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, and orders Maxwell to file these documents on the public docket without redaction by July 2, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
This document is an Opinion & Order filed on June 25, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, the law firm that represented Virginia Giuffre in a 2015 civil defamation suit against Maxwell. The document outlines the background of the civil suit, noting that Giuffre alleged defamation regarding accusations of sexual abuse by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00004784.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated June 30, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter, submitted on behalf of both the prosecution and the defense in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, confirms that neither party requests any redactions to the Court's recent order denying Maxwell's suppression motion. Consequently, the parties have no objection to the public filing of the unredacted order and its accompanying exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00004782.jpg
This document is a court order from the Southern District of New York in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 25, 2021. Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the defendant's request that the Government is only required to file updates if there are material changes to Maxwell's conditions of confinement. The court noted it would take no further action absent other specific applications for relief.
DOJ-OGR-00004780.jpg
This is a court order issued on June 25, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order denies Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and further orders the unsealing of documents from a related civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, including a memorandum and transcripts from hearings in March and April 2019. The parties are given a short timeframe to confer and propose redactions to these documents before they are made public.
DOJ-OGR-00004777.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated June 7, 2021, from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter provides an update on the confinement conditions for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), stating that she receives more time and resources for discovery review than any other inmate. Specifically, it details her 13-hour daily access to computers, her ability to communicate with attorneys, and her extended time outside her cell.
DOJ-OGR-00004776.jpg
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 16, 2021. The order approves redactions proposed by Maxwell regarding a Government update on her confinement conditions and orders the Government to publicly file the redacted version by June 17, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00004757.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on June 15, 2021. The speaker, likely a defense attorney, argues that the defendant is engaging in positive intellectual growth by reading books by Coates and Baldwin, and highlights her strong family support system. The speaker also strongly condemns the conditions at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) during the Covid-19 lockdowns, describing the last 18-19 months of detention as 'inhumane'.
DOJ-OGR-00004748.jpg
This document is the cover page of a court transcript for a videoconference hearing held on April 29, 2021, in the case of United States v. Tiffany Days (Case No. 19 CR 0619). Tiffany Days was one of the prison guards charged with falsifying records on the night Jeffrey Epstein died. Notably, the header indicates this document was filed on June 15, 2021, as Document 300 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which is the case number for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting this transcript was used as an exhibit or filing in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00004737.jpg
This document is a Court Order filed on June 4, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order denies Maxwell's request to subpoena Boies Schiller Flexner LLP for specific items, including a victim's teenage diary, a pair of boots allegedly gifted by Epstein and Maxwell, and original photographs. The judge notes that while the victim's diary describes visiting Epstein in New York, there is no indication Maxwell is mentioned in the journal.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity