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-00010693.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that two of Ghislaine Maxwell's victims, Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein, should be permitted to give oral victim impact statements at her upcoming sentencing. It provides factual background on the sex trafficking conspiracy Maxwell and her coconspirator, Jeffrey Epstein, ran for over a decade. The document details how they targeted young women, like Ransome and Stein, who came to New York for the fashion industry, by preying on their vulnerabilities and promising career advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
DOJ-OGR-00010656.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 3 of the specific letter, page 65 of the filing) of a legal opinion written by Bruce A. Green. It addresses an ethical 'candor obligation' to inform the court about potential false information. The document was filed on June 24, 2022, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) and is marked subject to a protective order.
DOJ-OGR-00010596.jpg
This document is page 5 of a defense filing (dated June 24, 2022) related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the definition of 'victim' under the CVRA is narrower than sentencing guidelines and asserts that Maxwell's due process rights must be protected against new allegations in victim impact statements from accusers Annie Farmer and 'Kate' that were not cross-examined at trial. The document also attempts to impeach the credibility of Virginia Giuffre, noting she did not testify and alleging in a footnote that she failed to disclose prior abuse by a man named Ron Eppinger.
DOJ-OGR-00010590.jpg
This is the conclusion page (page 55) of a court filing submitted by the United States Attorney's Office on June 22, 2022, regarding the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government explicitly requests a prison sentence between 360 and 660 months (30 to 55 years) citing the magnitude of her crimes involving the sexual exploitation of young girls.
DOJ-OGR-00010589.jpg
This document is page 54 of a Government sentencing submission in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on June 22, 2022. The text argues for the imposition of a maximum $750,000 fine, notes that no forfeiture is sought due to a lack of identified property owned by the defendant used in the offense, and states that no restitution is sought because the six identified victims (Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa) have already been compensated via the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund or civil settlements.
DOJ-OGR-00010588.jpg
This document is a page from a government sentencing memorandum filed on June 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues for a significant financial penalty, highlighting that the defendant's wealth—derived largely from $23 million transferred by Jeffrey Epstein and the sale of a Manhattan townhouse—facilitated the abuse of victims and was concealed from Pretrial Services. The text asserts that her dishonesty regarding her assets is an aggravating factor warranting an above-Guidelines fine.
DOJ-OGR-00010587.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against a lenient sentence for a defendant. The Government refutes the defendant's claims of abuse and poor health during her confinement at the MDC, citing BOP records and courtroom observations of her being 'perfectly healthy'. The Government requests that the Court impose the maximum allowable fine of $750,000, arguing it is warranted given the defendant is a 'multi-millionaire' whose wealth may have come from a co-conspirator.
DOJ-OGR-00010586.jpg
This page from a Government sentencing memorandum (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell received preferential treatment at the MDC, including private amenities and access to counsel, refuting her claims of harsh conditions. It highlights inconsistencies in her complaints regarding general population and COVID-19 restrictions. A footnote addresses a 'credible death threat' claim, revealing it was merely an inmate's hypothetical remark about killing Maxwell for a million dollars, which an investigation deemed not credible.
DOJ-OGR-00010582.jpg
This legal document, filed by the Government on June 22, 2022, argues against the defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell's) complaints regarding her confinement conditions at the MDC. The prosecution asserts that her claims of abuse are unfounded, as determined by a BOP investigation, and are part of a pattern of dishonesty aimed at garnering public sympathy, citing a November 2021 Daily Mail article as a previous example of this tactic.
DOJ-OGR-00010576.jpg
This document is page 41 of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details the long-term psychological harm inflicted on victims, citing expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio and personal statements from victims 'Jane' and 'Annie.' The text highlights the victims' struggles with self-worth, trust, and suicidal ideation resulting from the abuse by Maxwell and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00010575.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Document 670, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details the government's identification of 32 minor victims, specifically naming Carolyn and Virginia. It describes the 'pyramid scheme' devised by Maxwell and Epstein, noting that victims often coordinated with young personal assistants. The document emphasizes the severe 'Victim Impact,' describing the abuse as a 'recurring nightmare' of sexual abuse and physical violation within 'terrifying mansions.'
DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a significant prison sentence (360 to 660 months) for a defendant convicted of sexually exploiting underage girls. It refutes the defendant's arguments for a lighter sentence by citing legal precedents (Stinson, Sash) that prioritize the plain text of sentencing guidelines over conflicting commentary. A footnote dismisses the defendant's comparison of her potential sentence to that of Epstein's as a flawed argument based on different guideline structures.
DOJ-OGR-00010552.jpg
This document is a page from a government legal filing arguing for a harsher prison sentence for a defendant. The prosecution contends that the sentencing calculation should include two additional victims, Virginia Roberts and Melissa, which would increase the offense level from 40 to 42. This change would raise the recommended sentencing range from 292-365 months to 360-660 months' imprisonment, based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00010527.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on June 21, 2022. It establishes deadlines for filing objections and non-objected statements on June 24, 2022. Crucially, it orders the Government to confirm by noon on June 22, 2022, that victims have been notified of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
DOJ-OGR-00010512.jpg
This document is the final page of a letter from Harriett Jagger to a court, filed as part of a legal case on June 15, 2022. Jagger pleads for mercy and a 'survivable' sentence for an individual named Ghislaine. The letter serves as a character reference intended to influence the court's sentencing decision.
DOJ-OGR-00010499.jpg
This document is a letter from Isabel Maxwell, filed on June 15, 2022, concerning the pre-trial detention of someone named Ghislaine. Maxwell describes Ghislaine's detention at MDC Brooklyn as arduous, lasting over 500 days, and violating UN rules, citing examples provided by Ghislaine's counsel. Maxwell expresses admiration for Ghislaine's character and fortitude, reiterates that the government and Court have found her not to be a threat, and hopes for her release soon.
DOJ-OGR-00010454.jpg
This document is a legal filing (Page 8 of 77) from June 15, 2022, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-sentence detention conditions were punitive and politically motivated to restore DOJ/BOP reputations following Jeffrey Epstein's death. It details a specific incident where a fellow inmate claimed she was offered money to strangle Maxwell in her sleep, highlighting the danger Maxwell faces in general population at the MDC.
DOJ-OGR-00010452.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from June 15, 2022, argues against harsh sentencing for Ghislaine Maxwell, claiming she is a victim of public condemnation and scapegoating. It details her arrest on July 2, 2020, in New Hampshire, framing her relocation as an escape from media intrusion rather than law enforcement. The document also cites a past trauma from her childhood, where she was allegedly on an Irish Republican Army "hit list," to explain her heightened fear and need for security.
DOJ-OGR-00010448.jpg
This is page 1 (marked as page 2 of the filing) of a sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a sentence significantly below the guideline range of 292-365 months and below the Probation Department's recommended 240 months. The text argues that Maxwell is being unfairly treated as a proxy for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, whom the defense characterizes as the true mastermind and principal abuser.
DOJ-OGR-00010444.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, is the conclusion of a court filing, likely a sentencing memorandum. It presents a calculation for a 'Total Offense Level' of 24 and argues that the court should apply the 2003 Sentencing Guidelines, which would result in a sentencing range of 51-63 months. The document is submitted by attorneys Christian R. Everdell of COHEN & GRESSER LLP and Bobbi C. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00010428.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that the defendant's offense conduct concluded by summer 2004. It disputes the validity of unauthenticated message slips (GX 4) presented by the government, contrasting them with other message books (GX 1-3) that were authenticated by Juan Alessi and Nicole Hesse and admitted into evidence. A footnote references a 2007 FBI interview with a victim, Carolyn, who stated her interactions with Epstein began when she was 14 and ended when she was 17.
DOJ-OGR-00010427.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes the testimony of a witness named Carolyn regarding her interactions with Epstein. The document argues that Carolyn's memory is unreliable and contradictory, pointing to inconsistencies in her timeline of events, particularly concerning her visits to Epstein's Palm Beach residence in 2004 after giving birth to her son. Evidence from message pads is cited to corroborate a timeline that conflicts with parts of her testimony, thereby attempting to discredit her as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00010414.jpg
This document is a letter from the United States Attorney to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter concerns the government's motion for the exclusion of time for Counts Seven and Eight under the Speedy Trial Act until June 28, 2022, the scheduled date of sentencing.
DOJ-OGR-00010411.jpg
This document is the final page of a court order from April 2022 in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced by case number 1:20-cr-00330). Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the defendant's motion regarding pre-indictment delay but grants the motion regarding multiplicity, ruling that Counts One and Five overlap with Count Three. Consequently, the conviction is formally entered on Counts Three, Four, and Six only, with sentencing scheduled for June 28, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00010410.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 29 motion and motion to vacate convictions. The court rejects arguments regarding prejudice due to deceased witnesses (including Jeffrey Epstein, his mother, Michael Casey, and Joseph Recarey) and pre-indictment delay. The text references evidence GX-424, an email chain showing Maxwell worked closely with an individual named Markham to create a household manual.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity