The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
25 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
26 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Legal representative |
18
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Legal representative |
16
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Williams
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
196 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
11
Very Strong
|
228 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
MR. WEINGARTEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
61 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Members of the jury
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
116 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
155 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
136 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
7 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings/Trial discussions | Courtroom (referenced by Tr... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Ms. Maxwell's Sentencing Proceeding | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | 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 | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Detention Hearing Decision | Court | 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 | Maxwell's attempt to dismiss indictment based on fabricated stories and perjurious conspiracy by ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Payment of criminal monetary penalties within 30 (or 60) days after release from imprisonment, ba... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing discussing attorney misconduct and potential retrial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar or argument regarding courtroom logistics and COVID protocols. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between Court and Counsel at 8:45 AM. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial sessions planned for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday before Christmas and New Year's. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | 10-minute break (Recess) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | 9 a.m. conference regarding the jury charge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Charging Conference (Trial Tr. at 2758–61) | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 questioning during trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing enhancements for Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000502.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the prosecution's argument against granting bail to the defendant, Mr. Epstein. It highlights the lack of detailed financial disclosure, Epstein's substantial international income (at least $10 million annually), and his residences in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Paris, all of which contribute to him being a significant flight risk. The document also criticizes a vague proposal for salaried "trustees" to monitor him and notes that his New York property is already subject to a forfeiture allegation.
DOJ-OGR-00000495.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the prosecution's argument that the defendant, Mr. Epstein, is an extraordinary flight risk. It cites his vast wealth, including an $8.6M Paris residence, ownership of private jets, extensive international travel (over 20 trips in 18 months), and limited family ties to the U.S. The document also reveals the recent seizure of a fraudulent Austrian passport in his possession, further strengthening the case against granting him bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000492.jpg
This legal document discusses Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender registration status in various jurisdictions. It notes that while a 2010 letter from New Mexico authorities stated he was not required to register there for a 2008 Florida conviction, he is registered in both Florida and the Virgin Islands. The court concludes that based on the evidence, Mr. Epstein poses a danger to the community and is also a flight risk, justifying his detention pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00000481.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the court's finding that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to the community. It details that victims have expressed fear for their safety should he be released and highlights the testimony of one victim, Annie Farmer. Ms. Farmer, represented by counsel David Boies, testified that she met Epstein at age 16, was flown to New Mexico, and that he was 'inappropriate' with her, leading her to oppose his pretrial release.
DOJ-OGR-00000446.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated July 16, 2019, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman. The filing argues against granting release to a defendant named Epstein, asserting that his immense wealth and financial sophistication create an irrebuttable presumption that he is a flight risk. The document quotes previous court transcripts and letters to argue that Epstein could easily transfer assets abroad, become a fugitive, and continue to earn millions, making any conditions of release, including a bond, meaningless.
DOJ-OGR-00000432.jpg
This legal document, part of a filing to Judge Richard M. Berman, argues against the government's position that Jeffrey Epstein's wealth creates an 'irrebuttable presumption' that he is a flight risk and should be denied release. The filing contends that this amounts to a 'per se rule' that is contrary to law. It cites government arguments from other court records which detail Epstein's financial sophistication, international ties, and ability to transfer assets and earn millions abroad as reasons why no bail conditions could be effective.
DOJ-OGR-00000431.jpg
This is a legal letter dated July 16, 2019, from attorney Marc Fernich to Judge Richard M. Berman regarding the case of US v. Epstein. The letter serves to supplement Jeffrey Epstein's request for bail by countering the government's arguments for detention made in court the previous day. Fernich argues that the government's position relies on a remand presumption connected to 18 USC § 1591, which Epstein's defense contends does not apply to the core conduct at issue.
DOJ-OGR-00000414.jpg
This legal document is a transcript of an argument, likely from a prosecutor, asserting that the defendant is a significant flight risk and a danger to the community. The argument cites the defendant's refusal to disclose his extensive wealth, access to private jets, a residence in France, a prior guilty plea for solicitation of a minor, and credible allegations of witness tampering as reasons for his detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000381.jpg
This document is page 15 of a transcript from a SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing for Mr. Epstein, filed on July 15, 2019. An unidentified speaker argues against the state's determination regarding Epstein's registration, while the court upholds a board's recommendation of 130 points and notes the right to appeal. The page concludes with a certification of accuracy from the Senior Court Reporter, Vikki J. Benkel.
DOJ-OGR-00000371.jpg
This document is a transcript from a SORA hearing, filed on July 15, 2019, detailing a conversation between the Court and Ms. Gaffney. The Court questions Ms. Gaffney about her failure to directly contact the original prosecutor on a case, labeling her information as hearsay and expressing shock at the lack of a thorough investigation. Ms. Gaffney defends her actions by stating she spoke with the prosecutor who took over the case and also called the prosecutor.
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with the defendant (Epstein) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not prevent his current prosecution in the Southern District of New York. The prosecution asserts that the language of the NPA explicitly limits its scope to the SDFL and does not cover the alleged conduct or victims in New York. The filing cites specific text from the NPA and legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support its position that one U.S. Attorney's office agreement does not bind another.
DOJ-OGR-00000337.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.
DOJ-OGR-00000330.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against granting bail to a defendant accused of a years-long scheme of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. The prosecution contends that the defendant's proposed bail package is inadequate, he is a flight risk due to his wealth and private jet, and he poses a danger to the community. The document details the allegations, including that the defendant paid victims and victim-recruiters in cash in locations like New York and Palm Beach, and urges the Court to order him detained pending trial.
DOJ-OGR-00000315.jpg
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, was limited in scope. It contends the NPA only barred federal prosecution for specific offenses within the Southern District of Florida and did not prevent the United States from bringing other federal criminal charges against him elsewhere. The document quotes the agreement to support its claim that the federal government's ability to prosecute Epstein was not fully relinquished.
DOJ-OGR-00000293.jpg
This document is a page from a legal plea agreement detailing the terms under which Jeffrey Epstein will plead guilty to state charges in Palm Beach County, Florida. Epstein agrees to plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution and a second count of solicitation of a minor, which requires him to register as a sex offender. In exchange, a binding recommendation will be made for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months in county jail and 12 months of community control, with the entire agreement being contingent on a judge's approval.
DOJ-OGR-00000284.jpg
This document is page 11 of a defense memorandum filed on July 11, 2019, arguing for Jeffrey Epstein's pretrial release. The defense asserts that Epstein is not a flight risk, citing his stable family background in the U.S., his business ties, and his history of compliance with sex offender registration requirements in Florida, New York, and the Virgin Islands over the previous decade. It acknowledges his wealth and Paris residence but emphasizes that the majority of his assets are in the U.S. and offers a sealed financial disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00030364.jpg
This legal document, dated July 26, 2017, outlines the registration and reporting requirements for sexual offenders. It details the conditions for lifetime registration, the legislature's justification for public disclosure based on public safety, and establishes that assisting a non-compliant offender is a third-degree felony. The document also specifies that offenders must report in person to their local sheriff's office twice a year.
DOJ-OGR-00021108.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) by referencing the 1953 Supreme Court case *Bridges v. U.S.* It details how Bridges was charged for a false statement regarding Communist Party membership in his 1945 naturalization application and how the Supreme Court interpreted the WSLA's scope. The document criticizes a District Court for mischaracterizing the *Bridges* opinion concerning the WSLA's legislative history and the nature of fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the legal precedent set in the Annabi case concerning the scope of plea agreements. It explains the "Annabi rule," which holds that a plea agreement only binds the U.S. Attorney's office in the district where it was made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document also highlights that this rule has been sharply criticized by other courts, such as in U.S. v. Gebbie, for lacking a sound analytical basis.
DOJ-OGR-00021051.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426. It outlines the arguments for an appeal on behalf of 'Maxwell', alleging multiple errors by the District Court, including the handling of 'Juror 50' in a post-trial hearing, constructively amending the indictment, and applying an incorrect sentencing guideline. The filing seeks to have the sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00021044.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The judge (THE COURT) informs a party of their appellate rights, discusses issuing a post-trial order, and establishes July 2004 as the official end date for a criminal conspiracy. Counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, acknowledge the court's statements and indicate they have no objections, though Ms. Moe reserves the right to submit a letter if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00021031.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, in which an attorney, Ms. Moe, responds to a judge's question about the hierarchy of a criminal conspiracy. Ms. Moe argues that trial evidence shows the unnamed defendant held a leadership position superior to that of Sarah Kellen, who was an assistant to Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The argument is based on the defendant's role shifting over time and Kellen taking on tasks like calling victims, placing the defendant higher in the scheme's structure.
DOJ-OGR-00021028.jpg
This document is the final page (45) of a court order filed on April 29, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan ruled on motions regarding multiplicity, dismissing Counts One and Five as multiplicitous with Count Three, and ordering judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six. The document confirms the sentencing date for June 28, 2022, and explicitly links the Defendant to a decade-long conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein to groom and abuse underage girls.
DOJ-OGR-00021027.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 29, 2022, denying the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) Rule 29 motion to vacate convictions. The court rejects arguments regarding prejudice due to absent deceased witnesses (including Jeffrey Epstein, his mother, Michael Casey, and Detective Joseph Recarey) and claims of pre-indictment delay. The text references evidence establishing the Defendant's close work with an individual named Markham on a manual and checklists.
DOJ-OGR-00021023.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's claim that missing evidence—such as financial records, phone records, and flight manifests—was prejudicial to her case. The court rejects this argument, stating the defendant failed to demonstrate what the absent documents would have shown or how they would have been beneficial, concluding the claims are purely speculative. The court notes that the missing evidence could just as easily have further substantiated the government's case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity