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-00009371.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 24, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on why her firm did not raise an issue of juror misconduct concerning a Ms. Conrad, despite receiving a letter from her on June 20, 2011, which was approximately three weeks after the case verdict on May 24, 2011. Brune states that she did not believe juror misconduct had occurred and explains her general criteria for selecting jurors, emphasizing the importance of following the judge's instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a witness named Brune, filed on February 24, 2022. The questioning centers on whether a letter submitted to the court by a Ms. Trzaskoma on July 21st was intended to mislead the court about when certain information was discovered. Brune defends Ms. Trzaskoma's actions and clarifies that their knowledge of the matter began after receiving a letter from a Ms. Conrad, a point they also made in a separate brief to the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009357.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript showing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's knowledge regarding a July 15th conference call and a July 21st letter, specifically probing whether Brune knew that statements made by a Ms. Trzaskoma during the call were incorrect. Brune denies having this knowledge and explains she read the transcript to understand a directive from Judge Pauley.
DOJ-OGR-00009356.jpg
This is page 295 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Ms. Brune (likely Susan Brune, a defense attorney), is being questioned about a female partner in her law firm regarding ethical obligations and the review of a final brief. Brune confirms reviewing 'email traffic' leading up to the submission of a 'July 21st letter' to ensure material information was conveyed to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009355.jpg
Transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) proceedings, specifically the questioning of Ms. Brune regarding the vetting of Juror 'Conrad'. Ms. Brune testifies about the distinction between a 'database search' and a full 'investigation' conducted by her team (including Benhamou, Kim, and Stapp) on May 12th. The testimony highlights a disconnect in the legal team's knowledge, admitting that Ms. Trzaskoma knew about specific email traffic that Ms. Brune was unaware of when she filed a brief stating there was no basis to question the juror's honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg
This document is a deposition transcript from February 24, 2022, where a witness, Ms. Brune, is questioned about her knowledge of a "Westlaw report" and a "Google search." Ms. Brune states she learned about the Westlaw report on July 18th during a discussion with her colleagues, Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein. The questioning reveals the report was allegedly found or provided by a Mr. Benhamou on May 12th.
DOJ-OGR-00009348.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Brune is undergoing direct examination. The witness corrects a previous statement about the timeline of events, clarifying that a key telephone conference handled by Ms. Trzaskoma with the Court occurred on July 18th, not earlier in May. The witness also characterizes another individual, Ms. Edelstein, as being very thorough in her work.
DOJ-OGR-00009345.jpg
This document is a transcript from a legal proceeding where a witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned about her failure to report a 'significant piece of information' to the Court's chambers. The questioner establishes that Ms. Brune had the resources, including an investigative team and a BlackBerry for immediate communication, to act on the information. Ms. Brune states she didn't believe the information was accurate at the time but confirms her team was diligent and would have followed any instructions she gave them.
DOJ-OGR-00009312.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's professional philosophy as a "forceful advocate," the factual certainty behind issues they raised in court, and their prior representation of David Parse. Brune defends their conduct, stating they strive for accuracy and only raise issues they believe have merit.
DOJ-OGR-00003266.jpg
This document details the plea negotiations in September 2007 between the USAO (represented by Villafaña, Acosta, and others) and Epstein's defense team. It outlines the drafting of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) proposing a 20-month jail sentence (reducible to 17 months with 'gain time') and notes a critical meeting on September 12 involving the State Attorney's Office to discuss state charges. The text also reveals internal USAO strategy, including preparing a revised indictment in case negotiations failed.
DOJ-OGR-00003124.jpg
This document is page 190 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The Government argues against striking allegations related to 'Minor Victim-3,' asserting that her testimony regarding grooming and sex acts in London is probative of the defendant's intent and the conspiracy with Jeffrey Epstein, even if potential statute of limitations issues exist for specific charges. The document emphasizes that the evidence establishes the relationship between the defendant and Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00003102.jpg
This is page 168 of a legal filing (Document 204) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on April 16, 2021. The Government argues that perjury counts (Counts Five and Six) should be tried jointly with the sex trafficking counts (Counts One through Four) because they involve the same evidence and separating them would waste judicial resources and traumatize victims by forcing them to testify twice. The text explicitly references Epstein's scheme to abuse underage girls and Maxwell's alleged participation in recruiting girls for sexual massages.
DOJ-OGR-00003098.jpg
This legal document is a filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss a perjury charge. The prosecution contends that the defendant's false statements in a deposition for the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil suit were material, as truthful answers could have corroborated claims that the defendant and Epstein recruited Giuffre and could have led to other victims or witnesses. The filing asserts that the issue of materiality is a question for the jury and should not be decided by the court at this stage.
DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 122 of 239) by the Government opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss Counts Five and Six. The Government argues that suppression is unwarranted because the contested materials, specifically Maxwell's 2016 deposition transcripts, were already unsealed in civil litigation by Judge Preska and affirmed by the Second Circuit, making them subject to 'inevitable discovery.' Footnote 42 discusses the defendant's failed attempt to modify a protective order to use criminal discovery materials in her civil case.
DOJ-OGR-00002983.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as affidavits, to establish a genuine factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The filing contrasts the current defendant's lack of evidence with several precedent cases (Aleman, Sattar, Feldman) where hearings were granted because defendants submitted supporting affidavits or made uncontested assertions.
DOJ-OGR-00002977.jpg
This document is a page from a Government legal filing opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss her indictment. The Government argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida cannot logically grant Maxwell immunity for future crimes (specifically perjury) committed a decade later, nor grant her broader immunity than Epstein himself received. A footnote clarifies the scope of the original Florida investigation, noting that while Minor Victim-2 was interviewed then, Minor Victims 1 and 3 were not interviewed and did not speak to law enforcement until 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.
DOJ-OGR-00002964.jpg
This legal document is an argument by the prosecution against a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment. The prosecution contends that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is irrelevant to the current case. The key reasons are that the defendant was not a party to the NPA, the agreement is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (where the case is being tried), and the NPA does not provide immunity for the specific crimes with which the defendant is charged.
DOJ-OGR-00004803.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on June 25, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena, rejecting her arguments based on the 'Franks' and 'Martindell' legal precedents. The text affirms a previous decision by Judge McMahon to modify a protective order to allow a secret Government investigation into a high-profile matter, noting that while Judge Netburn disagreed, McMahon's decision had a substantial basis and is entitled to deference.
DOJ-OGR-00004799.jpg
This document page discusses the legal standards applicable to the defendant Maxwell's request for an evidentiary hearing, specifically debating the applicability of the 'Franks' standard. The Court concludes that despite differences in context (Fourth vs Fifth Amendment), the 'Franks' standard is appropriate and Maxwell must make a substantial preliminary showing to justify a hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg
This page from a 2021 court filing details a February 29, 2016, meeting between the Government (AUSA) and Virginia Giuffre's attorneys, where Maxwell was identified as Epstein's 'head recruiter.' It discusses a protective order issued shortly after that meeting which prevented the sharing of discovery documents with law enforcement without a court order. It also addresses a dispute regarding an alleged second meeting in the summer of 2016, which the Government denies occurred.
DOJ-OGR-00004773.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated June 15, 2021. In it, a judge questions the defendant, Ms. Days, to ensure she understands the terms of her plea agreement, specifically a clause waiving her right to appeal if her sentence is 78 months or less. The judge confirms that her attorney, Mr. Donaldson, explained this waiver to her before she signed the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00004746.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim complains about the recurring problematic conditions, over-management, and hyper-surveillance Ms. Maxwell faces at the MDC, arguing it impedes trial preparation and violates attorney-client privilege. The letter supports its claims by quoting Judge McMahon from another case, who strongly condemned the "disgusting, inhuman" conditions at the MCC and MDC and blamed the incompetence of the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons.
DOJ-OGR-00004741.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on June 4, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's request (Request 11) for a subpoena to obtain original photographs of an alleged victim, ruling that the Government has already agreed to provide the photos in FBI possession, and that Maxwell failed to establish the relevance of the remaining photos beyond impeachment purposes, which does not satisfy Rule 17(c) requirements. The document concludes by formally denying the Defendant's motion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity