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-00021595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, for Case 22-1426. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding sentencing guidelines, where the court confirms an offense level increase to 36 and a guideline range of 188 to 235. Mr. Everdell formally preserves an objection to the government's request to treat two individuals, Virginia and Melissa, as separate offense groups for sentencing purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues against sentencing enhancements for his client, challenging the reliability of evidence like an 'unreliable message pad' and contesting the government's claim that the defendant received $7 million in 2007. The discussion revolves around the applicable sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the 2003 guidelines should be used based on the conspiracy's end date in 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.
DOJ-OGR-00021534.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to examine Juror 50 and other jurors. The defendant's motion was based on Juror 50's social media activity and post-trial statements, as well as a New York Times article alleging another juror had also been a victim of sexual abuse. The Court found the evidence insufficient, deemed the request a "fishing expedition," and took steps to protect juror privacy from media contact and legal inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing post-trial motions regarding 'Juror 50'. It discusses the juror's media interviews where he admitted to being a sexual abuse victim despite checking 'no' on his questionnaire, prompting the Defendant to file for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The document also details a phone call on January 5, 2022, where Juror 50 contacted the Jury Department seeking guidance and access to his questionnaire, which was denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021526.jpg
This legal document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, addressing a motion from the Defendant regarding potential juror misconduct. The Court orders a limited evidentiary hearing to question Juror 50 under oath about statements made to the media after the trial, which cast doubt on the truthfulness of their answers on the jury selection questionnaire. The Court denies the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and discovery, finding the standard is only met concerning Juror 50's questionnaire responses and not their social media use or the conduct of other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00021507.jpg
This document is page three of a legal agreement detailing the terms of a guilty plea by Epstein in Palm Beach County. Epstein agrees to plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors, and in return, a binding 30-month sentence is recommended, comprising 18 months in county jail and 12 months of community control. The agreement is contingent on judicial approval and includes Epstein waiving his right to appeal the conviction and sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021148.jpg
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing arguing that all counts in an indictment should be vacated and dismissed. It alternatively argues that if only some counts are reversed, a new trial should be ordered for any remaining counts due to prejudicial spillover from inadmissible evidence. The argument highlights that different counts are based on distinct facts, time periods, and complainants (Jane and Carolyn), making the evidence from one set of counts inadmissible for proving the others.
DOJ-OGR-00019606.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 15 of 15, internal page 14) of a legal response filed on September 28, 2020, in Case 20-3061. Attorneys Adam Mueller and Ty Gee of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. submit the filing on behalf of Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell. The document includes a Certificate of Compliance regarding word count and a Certificate of Service confirming the filing of 'Ms. Maxwell’s Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal'.
DOJ-OGR-00019567.jpg
This is page 5 of a legal filing dated August 17, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government may have violated the spirit of a Protective Order by providing a sealed order to a redacted third party, contradicting previous assurances made by Alex Rossmiller that such sharing would not occur. The document highlights concerns about the impact on Maxwell's constitutional rights and impending civil litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019542.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-gp-00330-AJN) dated July 30, 2020, that establishes rules for handling "Highly Confidential Information." It defines this information as including nude or sexualized depictions, outlines the process for the Government to designate it, and details the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge such designations with the Court. The document strictly limits the use of this information to the defense of the current criminal action.
DOJ-OGR-00019540.jpg
This is page 7 of a court order (Document 30, filed July 2, 2020) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines strict protocols for handling 'Confidential Information,' specifically prohibiting the use of such materials for civil proceedings and restricting the Defendant from possessing hard copies unless in the presence of Defense Counsel. It also establishes that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) will facilitate electronic access to discovery materials for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00019526.jpg
This is page 5 of a Court Order (Protective Order) filed on July 28, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text outlines strict protocols for handling Discovery materials, specifically prohibiting the Defense team and Potential Defense Witnesses from publicly disclosing the identities of victims or witnesses who have not already spoken publicly. It mandates that any court filings containing such identities must be filed under seal unless authorized by the Government or the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00019513.jpg
This page of a legal document, filed on July 27, 2020, outlines the conditions under which its provisions remain in effect. It states that changes require either a mutual written agreement between the Government and Defense Counsel or a modifying order from the Court. It also mandates that both parties must meet and confer before any hearings or trials to agree on modifications for presenting evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019512.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (Document 292) filed on July 27, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It outlines strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials, mandating that the Defendant may only review certain materials in the presence of counsel and cannot possess copies. It also prohibits public filing of confidential information without authorization and mandates the return or destruction of discovery materials at the conclusion of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019509.jpg
This document is page 7 (filed as page 8 of 13) of a protective order in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It stipulates strict handling procedures for 'Confidential Information,' limiting its use solely to the criminal defense and prohibiting use in civil proceedings. It specifically mandates that the defendant may only review hard copies in the presence of counsel and that electronic access within the Bureau of Prisons must be facilitated by BOP officials.
DOJ-OGR-00019505.jpg
This document is page 4 of a Protective Order filed on July 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It defines categories of individuals permitted to access discovery materials, including 'Defense Experts/Advisors' and 'Potential Defense Witnesses.' It mandates that any 'Designated Persons' receiving such materials must sign an agreement to be bound by the terms of the Order, which Defense Counsel must retain for potential court review.
DOJ-OGR-00019501.jpg
This is the final page (page 4) of a legal letter dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Attorneys Christian R. Everdell and Mark S. Cohen of Cohen & Gresser LLP respectfully request that the Court enter a proposed protective order for their client, Ms. Maxwell. The document was filed on July 28, 2020, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
DOJ-OGR-00019491.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 21, 2020, filed in case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text focuses on Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a), outlining the duty of lawyers and government agents to avoid releasing non-public information that could prejudice a fair trial. It lists seven specific subject matters that are presumptively prejudicial if disseminated publicly, including the accused's prior record, confessions, test results, witness identities, plea possibilities, inadmissible evidence, and opinions on guilt.
DOJ-OGR-00019467.jpg
This document is a docket report from Case 20-3061, detailing legal filings between July 21 and July 29, 2020, concerning the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries include motions from Maxwell's defense regarding extrajudicial statements and a protective order, responses from the USA, and orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan setting deadlines and ruling on the motions. The document chronicles a series of procedural exchanges between the defense and the prosecution in the days following Maxwell's initial filings.
DOJ-OGR-00019456.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court order filed on September 14, 2020. The Court grants Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to stay the civil action against her in its entirety until her criminal prosecution is complete. The Judge reasons that a partial stay would prejudice the Co-Executors (of the Epstein Estate) by forcing them into duplicative discovery without the ability to depose Maxwell, who is a central figure.
DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court order filed on September 14, 2020, discussing 'The Interests of the Court' regarding a motion to stay a civil case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The court reasons that staying the civil case favors judicial economy because the parallel criminal case (presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan) may resolve common factual issues and involves strict protective orders that complicate civil discovery. The text references letters from the Government and Moskowitz regarding these discovery limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00019453.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order filed on September 14, 2020, granting a stay in a civil case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that proceeding with civil discovery would prejudice Maxwell due to her concurrent criminal prosecution (raising Fifth Amendment issues) and the restrictive detention conditions at the MDC during the COVID-19 pandemic, which hinder her ability to consult with counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00019442.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to disclose documents to judicial officers in other civil proceedings, characterizing her arguments as 'vague, speculative, and conclusory.' The text references factual information the Defendant wished to disclose, specifically regarding grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed entity ('Recipient') during the Government's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity