Defense
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
21 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
11
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Flatley
|
Professional subject of information |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unidentified Speaker (LCSCMAXT)
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Representation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Government's witnesses
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecution/government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecutor (speaker)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jonathan Schanzer
|
Employment |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecution
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Kelso
|
Witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Defense expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Dietz
|
Expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
prosecution
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-05-07 | N/A | Defense supplemental motions due | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-21 | N/A | Deadline for joint proposal and show cause response. | Court | View |
| 2021-04-20 | N/A | Deadline set by Judge Nathan for parties to confer and submit a letter regarding redactions. | SDNY | View |
| 2021-04-16 | N/A | Filing of Document 204 | Court (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 204 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2021-04-12 | N/A | Deadline for Government to begin production of non-testifying witness statements. | N/A | View |
| 2021-03-23 | N/A | Filing of Government's letter relating to redactions on ECF | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2021-03-12 | N/A | Deadline set by the Judge for the Government to produce the referenced materials to the defense. | N/A | View |
| 2021-02-26 | N/A | Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions | Court | View |
| 2020-12-30 | N/A | Filing of Court Document 106 (Date filed according to header). | Court | View |
| 2020-12-28 | N/A | Court Order directing parties to indicate proposed redactions. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-28 | N/A | Filing of Document 100 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN | Court | View |
| 2020-12-23 | N/A | Initial Bail Hearing | Court | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Deadline for initial pretrial defense motions | Court | View |
| 2020-12-18 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 100 in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-14 | N/A | Filing of Document 102 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN | Court | View |
| 2020-12-10 | N/A | Court Hearing / Bail Hearing | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-10 | N/A | Court ruling on bail application (implied) | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2020-12-01 | N/A | Last bail hearing where government claimed finances were opaque | Court | View |
| 2020-12-01 | N/A | Deadline set by Judge Nathan for parties to provide an update letter. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-01 | N/A | Bail application where $22 million in assets were reported. | Court | View |
| 2020-11-24 | N/A | Court order directing parties to meet and confer regarding defendant's request for Warden to repo... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-11-23 | N/A | Requested extended deadline for specific production related to Epstein's devices. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-11-18 | Provision of equipment | The government provided a laptop computer to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC at the request of the defense. | MDC | View |
| 2020-11-09 | N/A | Discovery Production | MDC | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016122.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge, Ms. Sternheim, and Ms. Comey. The parties are establishing the order for alternating peremptory strikes during jury selection. The judge decides that the defense will start and outlines the sequence of strikes, a method agreed upon by both the defense and the government.
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-00002251(1).jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The court rejects the Defendant's proposed release conditions, including GPS monitoring, home confinement, and private security, citing her proven sophistication in evading detection and flight risk. The ruling also emphasizes legal precedents (specifically *United States v. Boustani*) that forbid a 'two-tiered bail system' where wealthy defendants can buy their way out of detention via self-funded private security.
DOJ-OGR-00002150.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a Curriculum Vitae (CV) or professional biography submitted as an exhibit in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It lists the subject's experience providing legal advice to high-profile international figures, including members of the Saudi Royal family and the Italian State, as well as their memberships in various international legal associations. The spelling of 'Irak' and 'Lybia' suggests the author may be European/French.
DOJ-OGR-00001965.jpg
This document is page 88 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on December 10, 2020, detailing the judge's rationale for denying bail to Ghislaine Maxwell. The court argues that Maxwell poses a significant flight risk due to her foreign connections and potential to evade monitoring, distinguishing her situation from other high-profile financial crime defendants like Madoff and Esposito. The page concludes with the defense introducing the COVID-19 pandemic as an argument for release.
DOJ-OGR-00019548.jpg
This is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order grants the Government's proposed protective order concerning discovery materials, finding the Defense's arguments against the restrictions to be unwarranted and unprecedented. The ruling resolves docket item number 29 in the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019519.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated July 28, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Government argues against the defense counsel's request to publicly name victims who have self-identified in the media or public fora, contrasting this with the narrower 'Epstein protective order.' The Government asserts that victims of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein should be protected from having their identities broadcast by the defense, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act and privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00019468.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket concerning the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically detailing a Memorandum Opinion & Order dated July 30, 2020. The order resolves disputes regarding a protective order, siding with the Government to restrict Ms. Maxwell from publicly referencing alleged victims not identified in the litigation and rejecting her request to restrict potential witnesses' use of discovery materials. The court emphasizes the need to balance privacy interests of victims and witnesses against the defendant's rights and public interest.
DOJ-OGR-00019338.jpg
This legal document, dated August 21, 2020, is a submission from the Acting United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorneys to Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It argues against the defendant's application to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, asserting that the application lacks legal justification, attempts to circumvent a protective order, and is irrelevant to the civil litigation. The document suggests the defendant's intent is to falsely accuse the Government and another party.
DOJ-OGR-00019252.jpg
This document is a page from the court docket for Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell, covering entries from July 8 to July 9, 2020. It records procedural orders regarding remote proceedings, Speedy Trial Act exclusions, and victim notification rights, as well as the filing of attorney appearances, a pro hac vice motion, and a superseding indictment. The document also details the scheduling of an arraignment and bail hearing via teleconference.
DOJ-OGR-00016928.jpg
This is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The proceedings take place in open court without the jury present, involving a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), government attorney Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding the draft jury charge and verdict form. The Judge outlines the process for reviewing requested changes to the draft charge page by page.
DOJ-OGR-00016915.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a stipulation regarding a meeting that occurred on the 3rd of a specific month in 2021, where counsel for a person identified as 'Kate' provided prosecutors with a U visa application. The text confirms that Defense Exhibit A-1 regarding this stipulation is received in evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016762.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Mr. Rohrbach, before a judge. The discussion centers on the extent to which the defense can question the thoroughness of the government's investigation and comment on the absence of evidence. The judge clarifies that while direct testimony about why certain investigative steps were or were not taken is restricted, the defense is permitted to make arguments to the jury based on the absence of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a cross-examination. Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiments on memory, distinguishing them from other evidence related to Dr. Rocchio, while Mr. Pagliuca briefly interjects. The Court ultimately rules 'Overruled' on an unspecified objection or motion.
DOJ-OGR-00016586.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016472.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) recording a discussion between the prosecution (represented by Ms. Moe) and the defense (Ms. Menninger) regarding the timeline for redacting government and defense exhibits. The prosecution argues against a 'fire drill' urgency, proposing to resolve issues over the weekend, which the Court accepts. The discussion then pivots to an attorney-client privilege issue.
DOJ-OGR-00016453.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the judge's instructions to the jury after the government has rested its case. The judge dismisses the jury for a five-day break, admonishing them not to discuss the case or consume media about it, and schedules the trial to resume on Thursday morning with the defense's case. After the jury is excused, defense counsel Mr. Everdell begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013004.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a legal argument between the defense, the prosecution (Ms. Moe), and the judge over the admissibility of a photograph. The key points of contention are the photo's metadata, whether the person depicted was a minor at the time, and the defense's accusation that the prosecution's actions constitute 'slut shaming'.
DOJ-OGR-00008990.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 609) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. It is the conclusion of a motion filed on behalf of 'Juror 50' requesting that the Court release his Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and the Defense. The filing argues that privacy concerns should not prevent Juror 50 from accessing his own documents, which are necessary to comply with a prior order from Judge Nathan regarding an inquiry into the juror's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 609) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for Juror 50's right to intervene in the action to obtain a copy of his Jury Questionnaire under seal and asserts his right to privacy regarding his history as a sexual assault survivor. The text references an inquiry initiated by Judge Nathan regarding Juror 50's conduct and potential non-disclosure during jury selection, heightened by intense media scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00013886.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and Government attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding trial logistics. Key topics include scheduling a charging conference for Saturday at 9 a.m. with public access, limiting testimony about a 'soap opera' by name, and the Defense's plan to show single copies of newly received photos to the jury by walking past the jury box.
DOJ-OGR-00013828.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge informs the jury that the government has rested its case and provides strict instructions for them to avoid any media or discussion about the case during a five-day recess. After the jury is excused, a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013556.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 757, filed 2022-08-10). The discussion primarily revolves around the nature of closing arguments, the proper method for presenting evidence (specifically regarding a witness's personal experience), and an 'Exhibit 52 issue.' The Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca (representing the defense), and Ms. Comey participate in the dialogue, clarifying procedural matters related to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013407.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense Attorney Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence connected to the testimony of Mr. Alessi and an anticipated witness. The discussion concludes with the court taking a recess.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity