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-00021998.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Analisa Torres, dated January 28, 2020. The prosecution argues against a six-month trial adjournment requested by the defendants, Noel and Thomas, stating that the delay is unnecessary and unwarranted. The letter details the extensive discovery materials already provided to the defense and affirms the government's readiness to proceed with the trial scheduled for April 20, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00021983.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from December 19, 2019, in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. Defense counsel, Mr. Figgins, requests that the court obtain a timeline from the government for an inspector general's report, which he believes is vital for his case. The government's counsel, Ms. Donaleski, responds that she does not have a timeline for the report but assures the court that all relevant discovery materials will be provided to the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00021974.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order (Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT) filed on December 16, 2019. It outlines protocols for handling 'Protected Materials' during discovery, specifically defining authorized personnel (legal staff, experts, jury consultants) who may access the data. It also establishes rules for showing materials to 'Fact Witnesses' without providing them copies, and mandates the destruction or return of materials to the Government upon the case's conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00021968.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 16, 2019, detailing a judge's ruling on the conditions for pretrial release for two codefendants. The judge imposes several conditions, including the surrender of all personal and duty firearms and permits, the posting of a $100,000 bond, the surrender of all travel documents, and a strict no-contact order between the defendants unless in the presence of their counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00021961.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on December 16, 2019. The presiding judge is reading the defendants their rights, including the right to silence and counsel, and noting that they have been charged in a six-count indictment. The case was referred by Judge Torres for presentment and arraignment.
DOJ-OGR-00021957.jpg
This document is page 4 of 5 from a court filing filed on December 16, 2019, in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT. It outlines legal procedures for the defendant regarding the handling of discovery material in public filings, specifically mandating that such material be filed under seal or that the Government be notified to allow for redaction discussions. If the parties cannot agree on redactions, they must seek Court resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00021836.jpg
This legal document, dated November 1, 2024, presents an argument for an en banc review to potentially overrule or limit the 'Annabi' canon of construction for plea agreements. The text discusses the jurisdictional authority of U.S. Attorneys' offices, citing the U.S. Attorneys' Manual and the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue about the scope of immunity and the government's obligation to be explicit about its limitations. The argument is framed in the context of a past case involving interviews with Epstein's lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00021831.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the legal precedent set in 'Annabi' should be overruled or limited because it creates unfairness in plea negotiations. The text specifically argues that a plea agreement negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit (likely referencing the Jeffrey Epstein 2008 Florida non-prosecution agreement) should bind the 'United States' globally, preventing prosecution in other districts for the same conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021793.jpg
This document is a legal form filed on March 11, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). Attorney Diana Fabi of the firm Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C. identifies herself as the attorney presenting oral argument on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner. The document also outlines standard court procedures regarding the recording of arguments, the hiring of court reporters, and interpreter services.
DOJ-OGR-00021780.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Document 94) for Case 22-1426, dated February 6, 2024. It is a blank administrative form requiring counsel to identify themselves and their representation status (Appellant, Appellee, or Intervenor). The page also includes a 'Notice to the Bar' detailing procedures for obtaining recordings of oral arguments, hiring private court reporters, and requesting interpreter services. The document bears a DOJ-OGR Bates stamp, indicating it was released by the Department of Justice Office of Government Information Services.
DOJ-OGR-00021773.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, filed July 27, 2023) arguing for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The text specifically attacks the credibility of 'Juror 50,' alleging he gave intentionally false statements under oath regarding his own history of sexual abuse during the jury questionnaire process. It cites legal precedents (McDonough, Jones v. Cooper) to argue that actual or implied bias warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021768.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the defense was denied a fair opportunity to expose juror bias during a post-verdict hearing. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Colombo and U.S. v. Greer, to define the constitutional duty of the court to allow for the discovery of bias. The document outlines three types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—to support the proposition that sufficient fact-finding is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021763.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (likely an appeal brief in the Ghislaine Maxwell case) dated July 27, 2023. It argues that Juror 50 provided false answers regarding his history of sexual abuse during jury selection and gave contradictory explanations for these falsehoods (e.g., being tired, definitions of family). The text criticizes the Court for accepting these falsehoods as an 'inadvertent mistake' and for refusing to inquire further into Juror 50's post-trial media interviews or allegations regarding a second juror.
DOJ-OGR-00021762.jpg
This page from a legal brief discusses a juror (Juror 50) who allegedly provided false answers on a jury questionnaire regarding sensitive case issues. The text criticizes the immunity deal granted to the juror during a subsequent hearing, describing it as a "Potemkin village" that served the Government's interest in preserving the verdict rather than ensuring truthfulness.
DOJ-OGR-00021744.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. The filing presents two main arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell: first, that a non-prosecution agreement makes her a third-party beneficiary and bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and second, that the District Court erred by not removing Juror 50 for cause after the juror provided dishonest testimony and concealed information about being a victim of child sex abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021740.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Compliance filed on June 29, 2023, for Case 22-1426. Assistant U.S. Attorney Won S. Shin certifies on behalf of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams that the associated legal brief complies with a court order from April 28, 2023, and contains 19,291 words.
DOJ-OGR-00021645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two counsels (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim). The judge outlines post-trial housekeeping matters, including the defendant's right to appeal within 14 days, and states the Court's intention to set the conspiracy end date as July 2004 in the final judgment. Ms. Moe acknowledges this, noting she will review the records and submit a letter if there is a discrepancy with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00021641.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge sentences Ms. Maxwell to 240 months (20 years) in prison, followed by five years of supervised release, noting her lack of remorse but following the Probation Department's recommendation. The total sentence is composed of concurrent sentences for three different counts.
DOJ-OGR-00021640.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing) concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge rejects claims regarding Maxwell's poor treatment at the MDC, citing her extensive access to resources, and highlights a pattern of dishonesty regarding her finances and civil deposition testimony (perjury). While noting that Maxwell and her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, acknowledged the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express remorse or accept responsibility for her actions.
DOJ-OGR-00021633.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, in which a judge is outlining the legal basis for an upcoming sentence. The judge states the applicable guideline range is 188 to 235 months but notes that, due to the Supreme Court's 'Booker' decision, this is only one of many factors to consider. The judge then lists the various sentencing factors required by law (18 U.S.C. 3553(a)), such as the nature of the offense, deterrence, and avoiding sentencing disparities.
DOJ-OGR-00021630.jpg
This document is a transcript of a statement made in court on June 29, 2023, by an individual convicted for their role in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. The speaker expresses remorse and empathy for the victims, acknowledges their conviction, and describes Epstein as a manipulative and controlling person, stating that meeting him is the greatest regret of their life. The statement reflects on the devastating impact Epstein had on everyone around him.
DOJ-OGR-00021628.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. The speaker, likely defense counsel, argues for leniency by highlighting Ms. Maxwell's positive contributions while incarcerated at the MDC, such as tutoring fellow inmates, and points to her age and lack of prior criminal history. While acknowledging the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced, the speaker emphasizes her client's good deeds and lack of danger to society.
DOJ-OGR-00021625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. Attorney Sternheim is speaking on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell, addressing the court and Judge Nathan. Ms. Sternheim acknowledges the courage of the victims and argues against the government's request for a sentence of 'multiple decades in prison' for Ms. Maxwell, who is nearly 61 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021604.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 29, 2023, where a government prosecutor is arguing for an above-guideline sentence for a female defendant. The prosecutor contends that the defendant's dishonesty, the severe and predatory nature of her sex-trafficking crimes, and the acknowledged inadequacy of the 2003 sentencing guidelines all justify a sentence longer than the calculated 188-235 months.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity