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-00015163.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, dated August 11, 2025. The order denies the Government's motion to unseal grand jury materials in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document also directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket 785.
DOJ-OGR-00015156.jpg
This document is page 24 of a court filing (likely an order or opinion) in the case United States v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text discusses a legal analysis regarding the unsealing of grand jury materials, weighing the defendant's (Maxwell) opposition against the public interest. The Court concludes that the specific factor of 'public interest' weighs decisively against unsealing because the materials consist of summary testimony by law enforcement that is already public record due to the trial, and lacks the historical significance found in cases like the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss.
DOJ-OGR-00015155.jpg
This document is a legal filing (Page 23 of 31) arguing against a Government motion to unseal grand jury materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text highlights procedural irregularities, noting that the motion was filed solely by the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) without the support of the local U.S. Attorney's Office or the trial team familiar with the case. It further criticizes the Government for failing to notify Epstein and Maxwell's victims in advance and for demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the trial record.
DOJ-OGR-00002421.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It includes a transcript excerpt where Maxwell denies giving massages to anyone, specifically including Epstein and '[Minor Victim-2],' and discusses her knowledge of Epstein's sexual activities involving a 'blond and brunette.' The document also references a ruling by Judge Preska in the civil case regarding the unsealing of Maxwell's July 2016 deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00002417.jpg
This document is page 8 of a defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021, arguing that Virginia Giuffre's defamation claims against Ghislaine Maxwell were based on lies and that Giuffre attempted to shift the focus to being 'sexually trafficked' by Epstein to third parties. It details the legal history of Maxwell's depositions and a protective order granted to shield confidential information from a 'media circus.' A footnote references a concurrent lawsuit between Giuffre and Alan Dershowitz, noting Dershowitz filed evidence suggesting Giuffre and her lawyers fabricated stories.
DOJ-OGR-00002389(1).jpg
This is page 12 of a legal filing (Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS, Giuffre v. Maxwell) filed on March 4, 2016. It outlines the procedures for challenging 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential' designations of discovery material. It specifies that failing to challenge a designation immediately does not waive the right to do so later, and outlines a process requiring written notice and potential court hearings to resolve disputes over these designations.
DOJ-OGR-00002387.jpg
This page is part of a legal document, likely a protective order, filed on March 4, 2016. It outlines the specific procedures for designating discovery materials and deposition testimony as 'CONFIDENTIAL' or 'CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION', including the requirement for attorney review and the basis for such a designation to prevent privacy harm.
DOJ-OGR-00002374(1).jpg
This document is page 3 (or 4 depending on the filing version) of a Protective Order from the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS). It outlines the protocols for handling 'CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION,' specifically requiring counsel to obtain written acknowledgments from third parties before disclosure and defining the legal representations made when marking a document as confidential. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00002374).
DOJ-OGR-00002354(3).jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Motion to Suppress) from February 4, 2021, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government made untrue representations regarding a redacted source who was instrumental in the prosecution and provided information before the investigation began. The text asserts that Maxwell would not have agreed to civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case without the Protective Order, and argues the court should suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation, specifically the perjury counts arising from those depositions.
DOJ-OGR-00002340.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, filed on February 1, 2021. It details severe technical difficulties Maxwell faces in reviewing terabytes of discovery material at the MDC, including frequent computer crashes, slow processing, and damaged hard drives allegedly mishandled by staff. The filing also alleges that Maxwell is subjected to stricter isolation than other inmates, physical and psychological abuse by guards, and reprisals for reporting mistreatment.
DOJ-OGR-00002317.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated January 25, 2021, submitted by the attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys argue that the indictment lacks the necessary specificity for Maxwell to prepare an adequate defense for Counts One through Four, violating her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. They request that the court either dismiss these counts or compel the government to provide a Bill of Particulars and further discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00002314.jpg
This legal document, filed on January 25, 2021, is an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to dismiss the Superseding Indictment against her. The defense claims the indictment is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify dates for the alleged crimes beyond a broad '1994-1997' range and lacks specific details, thereby preventing Ms. Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing requests the Court to either dismiss counts one through four of the indictment or compel the Government to provide a Bill of Particulars with more specific information.
DOJ-OGR-00002314(1).jpg
This document is a page from a legal motion filed on January 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the Superseding Indictment is vague, failing to identify specific accusers or dates beyond the range of 1994-1997. The filing requests that the Court dismiss Counts One through Four or force the Government to provide a Bill of Particulars, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) and Constitutional precedents regarding due process.
DOJ-OGR-00002283.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 120) dated January 25, 2021, in the case of USA v. Maxwell. It contains the Introduction section of a motion requesting the severance of Counts Five and Six (perjury charges related to 2016 depositions) from Counts One through Four (trafficking charges from 1994-1997). The defense argues that joining these counts prejudices Maxwell by introducing unrelated allegations from Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who is described in the text as having made false accusations against various high-profile figures.
DOJ-OGR-00002283(1).jpg
This document is an introduction to a legal motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense on January 25, 2021, requesting the severance of perjury charges (Counts Five and Six) from sex trafficking charges (Counts One through Four). The defense argues that joining these counts causes substantial prejudice because the perjury charges stem from a 2016 civil defamation suit involving Virginia Roberts Giuffre, whose allegations the defense characterizes as false and financially motivated. The document contends that Giuffre is not one of the accusers in the primary trafficking counts and that introducing her testimony would improperly influence the jury regarding conduct alleged to have occurred between 1994 and 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00002276(1).jpg
This is page 2 of a legal letter filed on January 25, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Ghislaine Maxwell case). Attorneys Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell of Cohen & Gresser LLP inform Judge Alison J. Nathan that they will submit motions containing 'Confidential Information' via email for review rather than filing them immediately on the public docket, to allow the government to review proposed redactions pursuant to a Protective Order.
DOJ-OGR-00002253(1).jpg
This legal document is a court order or memorandum explaining the decision to deny a defendant's release from detention. The Court acknowledges the alarming spread of COVID-19 at the MDC facility where the defendant is housed but concludes that this does not outweigh the finding that the defendant is a substantial flight risk. The Court also notes the defendant has no underlying health conditions and determines that a new hearing is unnecessary, resolving the matter based on the submitted legal briefs.
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-00002249(1).jpg
This document is page 17 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, denying bail conditions for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the defendant's proposed bail package, including $8 million in property, $500,000 in cash, and bonds co-signed by friends and family, supported by a financial report from UK firm Macalvins analyzing her assets from 2015-2020. Despite the submission of new financial data and verification by fraud examiners, the Court remains unpersuaded that the package reasonably assures her appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00002248(1).jpg
This legal document is a court's justification for ordering the pretrial detention of a defendant. The Court finds that the defendant has demonstrated a lack of candor, misrepresented her financial situation to Pretrial Services, and poses a significant flight risk. Despite a proposed $28.5 million bail package, the Court concludes that no conditions of release can reasonably assure her appearance, thus warranting her continued detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002247.jpg
This page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues against granting bail to Ghislaine Maxwell, citing her lack of US employment ties, significant foreign connections, and flight risk. The text details her history of providing 'incomplete or erroneous' financial information to Pretrial Services, specifically noting a July 2020 incident where she underreported assets at $3.5 million and misrepresented her ownership status of a New Hampshire property. It references a report by the accounting firm Macalvins intended to clarify her finances.
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-00002243.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 30, 2020, details the Court's analysis of a renewed bail motion for a defendant, identified as Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court remains concerned about her substantial international ties and multiple citizenships, particularly her French citizenship, as a significant flight risk. The document weighs the defendant's offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK against conflicting evidence, including a letter from the French Ministry of Justice stating French law prohibits extraditing its nationals and the defendant's own experts using uncertain language.
DOJ-OGR-00002243(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against the defendant's, Ghislaine Maxwell's, renewed motion for bail. The prosecution asserts that her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), and connections abroad make her a significant flight risk. The document contends that her offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK is legally contested, citing a letter from the French Ministry of Justice and the probabilistic language used by her own experts, which does not eliminate the risk of her successfully blocking extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00002239.jpg
This document is a page from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for bail, explaining that under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), a presumption in favor of detention applies because the Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim. The document cites case law (Contreras and Jessup) to affirm that an indictment establishes probable cause and places a limited burden on the Defendant to produce evidence to counter the presumption of detention.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity