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 | Discussion of Holiday Schedule | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Counsel Meeting | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | End of court day during jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court testimony (Direct and Cross-examination) of Mr. Berke. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon session of sentencing hearing begins. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding jury deliberations and verdict validity (likely the Parse case being cite... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding admissibility of technical testimony about CD burning and file dates (cre... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Granting of Use Immunity to Juror 50 | Federal Court (Southern Dis... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sidebar conference to record Juror 50's name under seal | Courtroom Sidebar | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussions regarding jury instructions and notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Denial of defendant's motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3 | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | In camera review | Chambers | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed Hearing regarding Juror 50 | Courtroom (SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Bail Proceeding where defense argues against the weight of evidence and government tactics. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court denial of NCB's motion to dismiss | Federal Court (USA) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Hearing/Sidebar | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Authorization of limited jurisdictional discovery regarding PIF | Federal Court (USA) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Maxwell's Sentencing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Identification of Exhibit AF9 (Cowboy boots). | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Sidebar/Discussion without Jury | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Video arraignment and bail hearing | Court (Video) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Initial conference in this matter | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Government rested its case early. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn regarding credibility, mental health, and child custody hist... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002001.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, argues that she did not attempt to avoid arrest. The defense counters the government's claims by stating they would have arranged for a self-surrender if asked and that her actions during the arrest, such as moving to an interior room and having a phone wrapped in tin foil, were pre-arranged security measures to protect her from the press, not to evade law enforcement. This claim is supported by a newly obtained statement from the head of her security company.
DOJ-OGR-00001996.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell should be granted bail. It contends she was not hiding from the government but was protecting herself and her family from intense media scrutiny and physical threats that escalated dramatically after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in July 2019. The filing asserts her financial transparency, citing joint tax returns and financial reports, and uses media analytics from LexisNexis to demonstrate the spike in press coverage as evidence for her need for privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00001995.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 14, 2020, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense. It references a 'Macalvins report' used to refute government claims that Maxwell's finances are opaque, asserting that she and her spouse have fully disclosed assets totaling approximately $22.5 million, which is offered as the bond amount. A footnote contains redactions regarding the name of a specific bank to protect privacy or security.
DOJ-OGR-00001994.jpg
This legal document outlines the financial activities of Ms. Maxwell from 2015 to 2020, detailing a significant shift of her assets. It notes her net worth in 2015 was over $20 million, the sale of a $15 million NYC property, her marriage in 2016, and the subsequent transfer of the majority of her assets to her spouse via a trust. By 2019, all assets in the trust were distributed to her spouse, placing them under his control.
DOJ-OGR-00001993.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Motion for Bail) arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell has now provided a thorough review of her finances for the years 2015-2020, addressing previous court concerns. Defense counsel retained UK accounting firm Macalvins to analyze bank statements, tax returns, and FBAR filings for Maxwell and her spouse. This report was further validated by a redacted former IRS Special Agent with 40 years of experience in financial fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00001988.jpg
This document is a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It asserts that Maxwell has deep ties to the U.S., specifically through her spouse (whose name is redacted), and is supported by letters from family and friends willing to post significant financial assets as sureties. The defense argues these letters counter the 'cruel caricature' of Maxwell in the press and address the Court's previous concerns regarding her lack of dependents or ties to the country.
DOJ-OGR-00001982.jpg
This legal document is part of a renewed bail application for Ms. Maxwell, submitted by her defense team. It presents new evidence to the Court, including letters of support from her spouse and friends, a detailed financial report from Macalvins Limited showing assets of approximately $22.5 million for a proposed bond, and statements to counter the government's narrative that she was a flight risk. The defense argues this new information, unavailable at the initial hearing, demonstrates her strong ties to the U.S. and justifies her release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001979.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement from Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team, filed on December 14, 2020, in support of a renewed motion for her release on bail. The memorandum argues that new information, including evidence of US family ties, a detailed financial report, and irrevocable waivers of extradition from the UK and France, addresses the court's previous concerns about flight risk. It also attacks the weakness of the government's case and proposes an 'expansive set of bail conditions' to ensure her presence in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001962.jpg
This legal document from December 10, 2020, details a court's analysis of arguments from Ms. Maxwell's defense. The court dismisses the defense's claim that Maxwell is not a flight risk, finding her pre-indictment contact with the government insignificant and distinguishing her case from the legal precedent of U.S. v. Friedman. The court also suggests that Ms. Maxwell may not have fully grasped the severity of the charges against her until after she was formally indicted.
DOJ-OGR-00001940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An unidentified attorney argues before a judge during a bail hearing, contending that a lengthy examination of their client's assets is unnecessary and intended only for detention, citing a precedent from a Judge Raggi. The attorney also signals their intent to file significant legal motions that could challenge the indictment's validity, which they argue the court should consider when weighing the evidence for bail purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00001935.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues against the detention of their client. The attorney refutes the government's claim that a perjury charge should warrant detention, framing it as a simple denial of guilt during a deposition and emphasizing the defendant's right to be presumed innocent. The speaker also notes the government has been investigating the case for ten years and requests the proceedings remain open to present more facts.
DOJ-OGR-00001912.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. In it, a prosecutor argues against granting bail to a defendant, claiming she has not been transparent about her finances. The prosecutor states the defendant placed millions of dollars in a trust controlled by a relative and a close associate, has wealth stored abroad, and failed to disclose this information, making her a significant flight risk who has not earned the court's trust.
DOJ-OGR-00001908.jpg
This page captures a dialogue between the Court and Ms. Moe regarding a bail determination. The Judge asks how to distinguish between the defendant hiding to evade authorities versus hiding to avoid press notoriety related to the Epstein case. Ms. Moe argues that regardless of the motive, the facts demonstrate the defendant's ability and willingness to live in hiding.
DOJ-OGR-00001891.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. In the transcript, a speaker identified as Ms. Moe explains to the judge ('your Honor') that files from a previous F.B.I. investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in Florida have been physically shipped to the New York F.B.I. office. These files have been scanned and imaged to allow for a comprehensive review, and the court is inquiring about the process for disclosing any additional information that may be found.
DOJ-OGR-00001885.jpg
This page is a transcript from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated December 10, 2020. The Court is establishing logistical protocols for a hearing on pretrial detention, citing COVID-19 as a reason for specific remote access arrangements. The Judge details provisions for video feeds for the press and audio lines for the public (1,000 callers), alleged victims, and the defendant's family.
DOJ-OGR-00001884.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The judge, government counsel Ms. Moe, and defense counsel Mr. Cohen agree to conduct the day's proceedings remotely due to the pandemic. The judge rules that the hearing cannot be delayed, emphasizing the interests of justice and the fact that the detained defendant is seeking release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001872.jpg
This legal document, filed by counsel for Ms. Maxwell, argues that her pretrial detention conditions are excessively punitive and amount to de facto solitary confinement. The filing details sleep deprivation, constant surveillance, and frequent, invasive body scans and strip searches, asserting these measures are detrimental to her health and ability to prepare for trial. The counsel contrasts these conditions with those of other clients, including those charged with terrorism and murder, to highlight their unprecedented severity.
DOJ-OGR-00001857.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated November 30, 2020, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, requesting permission to file a redacted bail application for Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that redactions are necessary to protect the privacy and safety of third parties, such as financial sureties, from the intense media speculation that would follow any disclosure of their identities. The letter cites legal precedent and the privacy protections previously afforded to Ms. Maxwell's accusers as justification for the request.
DOJ-OGR-00001834.jpg
This document is a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government requested to delay the disclosure of sensitive witness information to the defense to protect an ongoing investigation and encourage victim cooperation. Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the request for delay but rejected the Government's proposed timeline, ordering that the materials be produced by March 12, 2021, to ensure the defense can adequately prepare for trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001811.jpg
This legal document is a letter from defense counsel Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated October 23, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell's case. The letter complains that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) are severely hindering Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense by preventing counsel from reviewing documents with her effectively during legal visits. The defense requests the Court to order the BOP to allow them to pass legal papers to Ms. Maxwell for review and suggests a status conference to address these ongoing issues.
DOJ-OGR-00022130.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) dated May 20, 2021. The text is upside down in the image. It appears to be the signature page of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement involving the SDNY (represented by Audrey Strauss, signed by Jessica Lonergan). The agreement stipulates that if the defendant completes supervision and fulfills terms, the Government will move to dismiss the indictment. The case number corresponds to United States v. Torgerson (involving the prison guards on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died).
DOJ-OGR-00022126.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on May 25, 2021, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. It outlines the U.S. Government's ongoing and affirmative obligations to disclose information to the defense, including procedures for handling sensitive information related to national security or witness safety. The order also specifies the range of sanctions the Court can impose for non-compliance, from granting a continuance to dismissing charges entirely.
DOJ-OGR-00022123.jpg
This legal document, filed on May 21, 2021, is a submission from the United States Attorney's office to the Court, signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Jessica Lonergan and Nicolas Roos. It addresses the scheduling of a court proceeding, stating that if the proposed date is inconvenient or if an in-person proceeding is desired, the parties can propose alternative dates. Copies were sent to Defense Counsel and Pretrial Services.
DOJ-OGR-00022102.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing from June 9, 2020, in the case against Thomas (likely regarding Epstein's guards). The Court denies the defendant's request to compel the Government to disclose evidence underlying an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, accepting the Government's representation that no additional Brady material exists and that the OIG report is not yet drafted. The text cites various legal precedents regarding Rule 16 and Brady obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00022040.jpg
This document, an excerpt from a legal filing, discusses the importance of discovery and the production of exculpatory evidence in criminal cases, citing precedents from the Libby and Marshall cases. It details how courts have interpreted Rule 16 regarding material evidence, emphasizing that the government must produce relevant documents even if they originate from other agencies. The text also references a definition of material evidence from the United States v. Lloyd case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity