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 | Legal proceeding | A post-verdict hearing where the Court's inquiry failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Closing arguments are anticipated for the 20th or 21st. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Hearing | An initial bail hearing where the Court found the Defendant had no underlying health conditions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | An attorney is arguing against a 'leadership enhancement' for Maxwell, citing trial testimony to ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal hearing | An initial bail hearing was held where the defendant's assets were discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed post-verdict hearing to determine if Juror 50 deliberately lied on a juror questionnaire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | A discussion in court about whether a conspiracy continued through all of 2004 and into 2005. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court outlines the logistics for the upcoming voir dire (jury selection) process. | courtroom, 518 | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A daily meeting scheduled for 8:30 a.m. beginning 'tomorrow' to prepare for voir dire. | courtroom, 518 | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court granted Ms. Maxwell leave to renew her motion after the conclusion of her trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions on the grounds that she failed to show 'actual an... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Mr. Robertson asks the Court to reconsider its earlier decision denying him pretrial release, cit... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | Jurors completed questionnaires as part of the selection process. The document alleges that at le... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Juror dismissal | An original juror was excused from service due to a family commitment, leading to an alternate ju... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of evidence, specifically photographs, an... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Recess | The court calls for a comfort break during the proceedings. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A conversation between THE COURT and MR. SHECHTMAN regarding disclosure of documents and misleadi... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Initial bail hearing for Ms. Maxwell. | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court granted the government's motion to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying in... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | The government, represented by Ms. Moe, moved to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlyin... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An initial bail hearing was held where the Court found the defendant has no underlying health con... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | The Court's consideration of whether to release Juror 50's jury questionnaire and voir dire trans... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Dismissal of Juror 55 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Ms. Chapell by Mr. Everdell regarding an invoice (Government's 802) ... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019439.jpg
This legal document from Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020, contains two certifications related to a court filing. Adam Mueller certifies that a brief complies with federal court rules regarding word count (7,343 words) and formatting, while Nicole Simmons certifies that she filed 'Ms. Maxwell’s Opening Brief' with the court and served it to all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system.
DOJ-OGR-00019428.jpg
A page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 24, 2020. The text argues that the government failed to follow proper procedures to access court-protected documents from a civil case. It highlights Ms. Maxwell's unique position as the only individual involved in all six related judicial proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019406.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, arguing procedural impropriety regarding how the government obtained Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential civil deposition transcripts. It details that a protective order in 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' specifically excluded language allowing sharing information with law enforcement, yet the government somehow obtained these sealed transcripts to indict Maxwell for perjury. The text questions the legality of the government's acquisition of these documents.
DOJ-OGR-00019399.jpg
This legal document from Case 20-3061, dated September 23, 2020, contains two certifications related to a court filing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Counsel Adam Mueller certifies that the response brief complies with the court's word count rules, and Nicole Simmons certifies that she has filed "Ghislaine Maxwell's Response to Opposition to Motion to Consolidate" with the court and served it to all counsel of record.
DOJ-OGR-00019396.jpg
Page 3 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 23, 2020, arguing against the unsealing of documents. Maxwell's defense contends that unsealing her deposition in a civil case (*Doe v. Indyke*) would prejudice her ability to litigate Fifth Amendment rights in her parallel criminal case before Judge Nathan. The document accuses the government of gamesmanship regarding the stay of proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00019388.jpg
This document is page 22 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It contains the conclusion of the Government's argument, signed by AUSA Maurene Comey, requesting that the Court dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny her motion to consolidate appeals regarding an Order by Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00019365.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 22 internal, page 23 of PDF) of a legal filing submitted by Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey on September 16, 2020. The Government argues that Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, her motion to consolidate appeals should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00019364.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a motion from a defendant named Maxwell to consolidate her criminal and civil appeals. The Government asserts that Maxwell's motion is a strategic attempt to circumvent an order by Judge Nathan that restricts the use of criminal discovery materials in her civil litigation. The filing warns that consolidating the cases would effectively reverse the judge's order without a proper appeal and raises concerns about disseminating sensitive, sealed criminal documents to civil litigants.
DOJ-OGR-00019309.jpg
Page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a Protective Order. It outlines strict conditions under which the Defendant and Defense Counsel may access 'Confidential Information,' prohibiting its use in civil proceedings and mandating that the Defendant only review materials under the supervision of counsel or via Bureau of Prisons protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00019306.jpg
This document is a page from a court's Protective Order, filed on July 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It outlines the rules for handling sensitive case information ('Discovery'), specifying that the entire defense team is bound by the order and that any dissemination of materials must be secure. The order strictly prohibits all parties, including the Government and the Defendant's team, from posting any Discovery information on the internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 17) from Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The text argues against modifying a protective order due to grand jury secrecy but argues that, based on the precedent of Brown v. Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell should be allowed to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska. A significant portion of the page is redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019260.jpg
This document is page 3 of 5 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to allow the disclosure of discovery documents to judges in related civil cases, characterizing the Defendant's arguments as 'vague, speculative, and conclusory.' The text references a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' entity.
DOJ-OGR-00019238.jpg
This document is a procedural instruction sheet from a court case (Case 20-3061), dated September 9, 2020. It outlines the requirements for attorneys and pro se parties to update their contact information via PACER or by letter, and explains the protocols for reviewing and correcting case captions and appellate designations. The document contains a DOJ footer (DOJ-OGR-00019238).
DOJ-OGR-00019227.jpg
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, is a court finding that justifies providing public access to court proceedings via telephone conference. The court argues this measure is narrowly tailored to protect public health from COVID-19 and is less restrictive than in-person hearings, which have attendance limitations. This approach allows for broad public access, even for individuals who would otherwise be barred from the courthouse under a previous order (Standing Order 20-9).
DOJ-OGR-00019197.jpg
Page 5 of a court filing (Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ) dated July 2, 2020. The document outlines the court's justification for holding proceedings via telephone conference rather than in-person, citing COVID-19 health and safety concerns and Standing Order 20-9. It argues that telephonic access is less restrictive and allows more public access (up to 500 people) than a physically distanced courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00019147.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Chapell, by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. During the testimony, Government Exhibits are discussed and admitted into evidence, with Ms. Chapell identifying Exhibit 802 as an "Invoice on Jeffrey E. Epstein's account." The government then offers this exhibit under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00019141.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where the judge and attorneys discuss scheduling for the remainder of a trial. The main topic is whether to hold a charge conference on Thursday night, which depends on if the defense will rest its case before Friday. A defense attorney also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena served to an individual named Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00019138.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural debate between legal counsel and a judge. An unnamed attorney objects to Ms. Moe's proposal to have a witness, Mr. Buscemi, present exhibits to the jury, arguing it prevents substantive cross-examination and resembles a closing argument. Ms. Moe defends the method as a streamlined process to show the jury evidence they haven't yet seen.
DOJ-OGR-00017095.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of a prosecutor's closing argument, which urges the jury to convict Maxwell for sexually exploiting and trafficking underage girls, citing the testimony of witnesses like Juan Alessi, David Mulligan, and Janice Swain. Following the argument, the judge addresses the jury, announcing a short lunch break and reminding them not to discuss the case.
DOJ-OGR-00016998.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Mr. Everdell, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding 'Instruction 44' concerning the credibility of witnesses who are convicted felons. Mr. Everdell reads a proposed instruction text derived from 'Sand' (likely a legal reference book), which Mr. Rohrbach challenges as not being standard practice in that district.
DOJ-OGR-00016986.jpg
This court transcript captures an argument from a defense attorney, Mr. Everdell, objecting to a 'conscious avoidance' jury instruction for his client, Ms. Maxwell. He argues that the instruction is inappropriate because testimony from witnesses Jane, Annie, and Carolyn establishes Ms. Maxwell as an active participant in the alleged sexual crimes, not someone who deliberately ignored them. The attorney cites specific acts like participating in massages and groping to prove direct involvement, thereby negating the basis for a conscious avoidance theory.
DOJ-OGR-00016911.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey) and the Court regarding scheduling for an ongoing legal proceeding. The parties discuss the timing for bringing in the jury, potential extended hours on Monday to complete proceedings, and the estimated duration of closing arguments, including a summation argument for Ms. Moe and a rebuttal. The conversation focuses on logistical aspects of the trial's conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00016831.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Dubin (likely Eva Dubin) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). During questioning by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca, Dr. Dubin reviews Government Exhibit 248, a photograph she states she has never seen before. She identifies the individuals in the photo as Mr. Epstein and her oldest child (age 27).
DOJ-OGR-00016805.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Young. An unnamed questioner reads passages from another document for Young to confirm, describing a person named Jane's first trip to New York, her meeting with Epstein, and her former residence in a gated community in Florida called Bear Lakes. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, then interjects to bring up a matter related to an 'Annie Farmer issue'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity