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 | Court ruling | The Court previously considered and rejected the defendant's argument regarding the 'categorical ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A court hearing to discuss scheduling for an upcoming trial, including setting deadlines and hear... | Southern District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | An initial bail hearing was held where the Court found the defendant had no underlying health con... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and requested it be kept completely under seal. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Redirect examination of witness Edelstein. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Conference | The Court conferred with Ms. Comey about her position on the sealing of exhibits. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Scheduling announcement | The judge informs the jury that the court will not sit on the upcoming Monday, Tuesday, and Wedne... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Proposed juror questioning | The Government proposes that the Court question Juror 50 about their answers to a written questio... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process during which other jurors disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, sex... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Voir dire | The jury selection process, prior to which the defense counsel allegedly knew about the suspensio... | Court | View |
| N/A | Trial | The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, where she was convicted of Mann Act offenses. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | An initial bail hearing was held where the Government expressed doubt about the defendant's repor... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal hearing regarding evidentiary disputes over a book/list. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document describes the legal standards and procedures for a court making a bail determination... | court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The voir dire process where prospective jurors were questioned. The document analyzes this proces... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing in the case of United States of America v. Paul Daugerdas where the defense and prosecu... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing was held where the court granted a motion to exclude time from the date of the hearing ... | Southern District Court (in... | View |
| N/A | Trial | A criminal trial where the Court gave instructions to the jury regarding charges against the Defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Daubert hearing | A prior hearing mentioned in the transcript where literature and the scope of examination were di... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court is in session to discuss a note from the jury regarding their deliberation schedule aro... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A Detention Hearing where the Government informed the Court about the seized diamonds and cash. | Court | View |
| N/A | Court testimony / cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines Mr. Alessi about his prior sworn testimony regarding his supervisors,... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A final pretrial conference held on November 23rd where a request was made to share Dr. Rocchio's... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document discusses the scope of a trial, arguing that introducing certain evidence about gove... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The judge discusses jury deliberation scheduling with counsel, sends a note to the jury, takes a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002231(1).jpg
This court order, dated December 28, 2020, and signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, denies the Defendant's application for release from custody. The Court reaffirms its initial decision, concluding that the Defendant is a flight risk and that pre-trial detention is warranted. The parties are ordered to submit a joint letter by December 30, 2020, regarding any proposed redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00002215.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues for her release on bond. It refutes the government's claims by explaining that a pre-arrest discussion of divorce with her spouse was a strategic measure to protect him, not a sign of a weak relationship. The document further asserts that Ms. Maxwell has fully disclosed her and her spouse's finances and accuses the government of baselessly claiming she was deceptive rather than challenging the accuracy of the financial report.
DOJ-OGR-00002215(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 103) from December 23, 2020, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that Maxwell and her spouse only discussed divorce prior to her arrest to protect him from 'terrible consequences,' not because the relationship was failing, and asserts that the spouse is willing to co-sign her bond. It also defends Maxwell's financial disclosures, stating she has pledged all her and her spouse's assets and that the government has not successfully challenged the accuracy of her financial report.
DOJ-OGR-00002214.jpg
This document is a defense reply filed on December 23, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application. The defense argues that Maxwell has strong ties to the U.S., including a spouse who has come forward as a co-signor and friends willing to pledge assets, contradicting the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The filing addresses a contradiction regarding her marital status, acknowledging she previously told Pretrial Services she was divorcing, while her spouse now asserts a committed four-year relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00002214(1).jpg
This document is a defense reply filed on December 23, 2020, in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application. The defense argues that Maxwell has strong ties to the U.S., including a spouse who has come forward as a co-signor and friends willing to pledge assets, contradicting the government's claim that she is a flight risk. The filing addresses a contradiction regarding her marital status, acknowledging she previously told Pretrial Services she was divorcing, while her spouse now asserts a committed four-year relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00002213.jpg
This legal document, part of a filing in the case against Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's case is weak and relies entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, with two key counts depending on a single witness, Minor Victim-1. The defense asserts that the case was hastily assembled only after the death of Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting a lack of substantial, pre-existing evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00002213(1).jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that the government's case against her is weak and was assembled after Jeffrey Epstein's death. The defense contends the case rests entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, with two specific counts relying on a single witness, Minor Victim-1. The filing dismisses the government's 'additional witnesses' as irrelevant, claiming their testimony only confirms that Maxwell and Epstein interacted with minors, which proves nothing.
DOJ-OGR-00002212.jpg
This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.
DOJ-OGR-00002212(1).jpg
This document is page 6 of a defense motion filed on December 23, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has conceded it lacks significant contemporaneous documentary evidence against Maxwell and is relying almost exclusively on the 25-year-old recollections of three unidentified accusers. The document distinguishes the evidence against Maxwell from that against Jeffrey Epstein, noting that existing documentary evidence pertains to him.
DOJ-OGR-00002199.jpg
This document is the final page of a legal filing submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley on December 18, 2020. It concludes an argument urging the Court to keep Ghislaine Maxwell incarcerated until her trial, citing concerns that she might escape justice or abuse children again if released.
DOJ-OGR-00002196(1).jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government, argues against a defendant's release from the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). It asserts that the MDC provides adequate care, including meals and medical checks, and that the security searches she complains about are standard procedure. The document also dismisses COVID-19 concerns, noting the defendant was quarantined and tested negative after a potential exposure and has no underlying health conditions, making her release unwarranted.
DOJ-OGR-00002193(1).jpg
This document is page 29 (filed 12/18/20) of a Government opposition to a renewed bail application in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government argues against release, citing the defendant's multiple foreign citizenships (including a non-extradition country), substantial wealth, and demonstrated sophistication in hiding assets as indicators of extreme flight risk. The document also defends the conditions of confinement at the MDC, noting the defendant has 13 hours a day to review discovery and access to attorney communications.
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from December 18, 2020, in which the Court reaffirms its decision to deny bail to a defendant. The Court rejects the defense's arguments, which cite precedents like the cases of Esposito, Dreier, and Madoff, by highlighting crucial factual differences, such as the current defendant's significant foreign connections and demonstrated sophistication in hiding financial resources.
DOJ-OGR-00002191(1).jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for bail reconsideration. The author contends that the defense is improperly relitigating issues already decided and that the precedent cases cited (Esposito, Dreier, Madoff) are factually different from the current case. The document emphasizes the Court's findings that the defendant has 'significant foreign connections' and has shown 'sophistication in hiding those resources and herself' as justifications for continued detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002186(1).jpg
This legal document argues for the defendant's detention by highlighting her deceptive behavior and flight risk. It cites her knowing disobedience of FBI directives when she fled, her attempts to evade law enforcement by wrapping a phone in tin foil, and her significant dishonesty regarding her financial assets, which are believed to be far greater than the $3.8 million she disclosed to Pretrial Services.
DOJ-OGR-00002185(1).jpg
This document is page 24 of a Government filing (Document 100) in the case US v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330), filed on December 18, 2020. It argues against bail by highlighting the defendant's evasion of law enforcement, noting that her counsel never disclosed her location despite being in contact with the Government. It details that during her arrest, Maxwell ignored FBI directives and ran away from agents who were clearly identified.
DOJ-OGR-00002176.jpg
This page from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues against bail for Ghislaine Maxwell. The prosecution asserts that despite a lack of specific documents naming Maxwell for every instance, the combination of victim testimony and corroborating evidence regarding Epstein makes a strong case. It also highlights Maxwell's flight risk factors, including significant foreign ties, millions in cash transferred to her spouse, and a sophisticated ability to live in hiding.
DOJ-OGR-00002170.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing that explains the Court's decision to detain a defendant pending trial. The Court determined that electronic monitoring would be insufficient and rejected the defense's arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. The document then outlines the applicable law for such a decision under the Bail Reform Act, detailing the Government's burden of proof and the factors considered when a defendant is deemed a flight risk.
DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's reasoning for detaining the defendant pending trial, citing flight risk, the insufficiency of home security/electronic monitoring, and rejecting arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. It also outlines the 'Applicable Law' under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.) regarding the standards for pretrial detention.
DOJ-OGR-00002166.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing detailing the background of an indictment against an unnamed defendant. It alleges that between 1994 and 1997, the defendant conspired with Jeffrey Epstein to facilitate the sexual abuse of minors by identifying, enticing, and grooming them. The document lists the specific charges, which include conspiracy, enticement of a minor, transportation of minors for illegal sex acts, and perjury for lying in a civil deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00002130.jpg
This legal document, authored by attorney William Julié and filed on December 14, 2020, provides a background on the bail hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell held on July 14, 2020. It highlights the US Government's argument and the Court's decision to deny bail, both of which centered on Maxwell's French citizenship and France's policy of not extraditing its nationals, which established her as a flight risk. The report's stated purpose is to legally evaluate the validity of the claim that France does not extradite its citizens.
DOJ-OGR-00002026.jpg
This document is a redacted letter of support filed on December 14, 2020, as part of a bail application for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The unnamed author attests to Maxwell's character, claims she was 'laying low' due to vigilantes rather than hiding from authorities, and offers to co-sign a $1.5 million bond. Furthermore, the author commits to living with Maxwell 24/7 in a New York residence to ensure she does not flee if released.
DOJ-OGR-00002017.jpg
This document is the signature page of a legal filing from December 4, 2020, in which attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell formally request her release on bail. The document lists her legal counsel from three different law firms: COHEN & GRESSER LLP, HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C., and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim. The filing is part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN and was officially filed with the court on December 14, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00002014.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that her pretrial detention conditions at the MDC are excessively punitive and inappropriate. Her counsel asserts these conditions—including de facto solitary confinement and constant surveillance—are an overreaction to Epstein's death, are disproportionate for a non-violent detainee, and are impeding her ability to prepare a defense. The document references multiple unsuccessful attempts by counsel to remedy the situation through communication with the MDC, its legal department, and prosecutors.
DOJ-OGR-00002002.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was not attempting to evade arrest. It explains that her retreat to a safe room was a standard security protocol initiated after her guard mistook approaching FBI agents for the press. The document further contends that she wrapped a cellphone in tin foil to prevent press access after her number was leaked, not to evade law enforcement, citing that the phone was registered to her charity and that she used another, uncovered phone as her primary device.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity