The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-29 | Legal filing | Government to submit under seal: (1) an index of Maxwell grand jury transcript materials (summary... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-29 | Legal filing | The Government made a submission to the court. | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-29 | Court filing | The Government submitted a supplemental briefing as directed by the Court. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2025-07-29 | Legal filing | The Government filed a memorandum in response to the Court's orders regarding motions to unseal g... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-29 | N/A | Deadline for Government to file supplemental memorandum and provide transcripts to the Court. | SDNY | View |
| 2025-07-28 | Deadline | Deadline for the Government to produce grand jury transcripts for the Court's in camera review. | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-25 | Legal notice | The Department of Justice sent a notice advising that the Court was seeking letters from victims ... | N/A | View |
| 2025-07-22 | Court order | A previous court order (ECF No. 63) was issued, which the current order references. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2025-07-22 | Court order | The Court issued an order requiring further information to resolve the motion to unseal. | Court | View |
| 2025-07-22 | N/A | Court ordered that victim letters regarding the unsealing motion be submitted by Aug 5. | SDNY | View |
| 2025-07-22 | N/A | Court directed the Government to file a memorandum of law and submit Epstein/Maxwell grand jury m... | Court | View |
| 2025-07-22 | N/A | Court issued an Order directing the Government to file a supplemental memorandum regarding unseal... | SDNY | View |
| 2025-07-22 | N/A | Court Order issued requiring Government response. | Court | View |
| 2025-07-18 | Court filing | The Government moved the Court to unseal grand jury transcripts from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2025-07-01 | Legal hearing | The initial bail hearing where the Court rejected the defendant's arguments about the potential h... | Court | View |
| 2025-04-01 | N/A | Court's April Opinion (Apr. Op.) | Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the court document. | Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness regarding a study on 'Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Vio... | Courtroom (implied by 'THE ... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Rocchio, during a court proceeding identified as Case 1:... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding the formation of trust in abusive relatio... | N/A | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca regarding academic studies on sexual grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio, during which attorney Pagliuca requests the witness's time ... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness (Rocchio) regarding their professional experience treating and ev... | Unspecified Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding the relationship between prior sexual his... | Court in the Southern District | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002782.jpg
This document is the Preliminary Statement of a legal filing (Document 171) dated March 23, 2021, regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's third application for bail. It outlines a massive proposed bail package including $28.5 million in bonds, $9.5 million in property, renunciation of foreign citizenship, and home confinement in NYC. The filing argues these strict conditions are sufficient to assure her appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002780.jpg
This is the second page of a legal filing by the US Attorney's Office in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated March 22, 2021. The Government argues against, but ultimately agrees to comply with, defense requests to redact specific information related to Count Six of the Indictment on pages 129-134, noting the information is already public. The document is signed by US Attorney Audrey Strauss and Assistant US Attorneys Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, and Rohrbach.
DOJ-OGR-00002774.jpg
This legal document is a court's opinion denying a defendant's third motion for bail. The court determines that the defendant remains a significant flight risk, and her new proposals—renouncing her French and British citizenship and placing assets under a monitor—are insufficient to ensure her future appearance. The court highlights the uncertainty and conflicting legal opinions surrounding the practical effect of renouncing French citizenship for a wanted individual.
DOJ-OGR-00020145.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that analyzes a defendant's proposed bail package. The Court concludes that the package, including a partially secured bond and various release conditions like home confinement, does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of flight. The Court reasons that the defendant's vast unrestrained wealth would plausibly allow her to flee and compensate third parties who supported her bond, and her arguments about illiquid assets are unpersuasive.
DOJ-OGR-00020142.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court argues against granting bail, citing Maxwell's lack of employment ties to the US, significant ties abroad, and a pattern of providing erroneous financial information to Pretrial Services, specifically underreporting her assets in July 2020 by omitting her spouse's assets and trust accounts.
DOJ-OGR-00020141.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's ties to the United States, likely in the context of a bail hearing. The court acknowledges letters of support from the defendant's friends, family, and spouse, which aim to prove her strong connections to the country. However, the court remains unconvinced that she is not a flight risk, highlighting a key contradiction: the defendant now emphasizes her spousal relationship as a significant tie, yet at the time of her arrest, she claimed to be getting divorced from him.
DOJ-OGR-00020136.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail. The defendant argues the government's case is weak, lacking documentary evidence and relying almost entirely on the testimony of three unidentified accusers. The court, however, disagrees with the defendant's assessment and reaffirms its previous decision to deny bail, finding no conditions can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00008817.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated January 14, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order reminds the involved parties that they must comply with Second Circuit law requiring court notice and permission before any contact with jurors post-trial. It explicitly states that any failure to follow this precedent must be reported to the Court immediately.
DOJ-OGR-00008815.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated January 12, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The order states that if a future submission from 'Juror 50' is allowed, the Court will grant the juror's legal counsel access to the ECF (Electronic Case Files) docketing system.
DOJ-OGR-00008812.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing from January 10, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the defense's position requesting a delay in sentencing due to a motion for a new trial based on misconduct by Juror #50. The defense argues that participating in a presentence investigation would violate Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights while the motion for a retrial is pending.
DOJ-OGR-00008806.jpg
This legal document, dated January 5, 2022, is a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It indicates that Ms. Maxwell (Ghislaine Maxwell) suggests examining deliberating jurors to evaluate their conduct and is in the process of drafting a Rule 33 motion. The document lists several attorneys and their respective law firms representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00008798.jpg
The U.S. Department of Justice submitted a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter informs the court that a juror has given multiple press interviews, revealing that he was a victim of sexual abuse and asserted that he "flew through" the juror questionnaire. The government brings these statements to the court's attention as they may have implications for the integrity of the jury selection process.
DOJ-OGR-00008794.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 2021, presents an argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The defense contends that a supplemental jury instruction given by the court was incorrect and prejudicial, citing multiple Second Circuit precedents to argue that confusing or misleading instructions at a critical stage of deliberation can be grounds for reversal. The filing asserts that this error applies to multiple counts and requests a curative instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg
This legal document, dated December 27, 2021, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the trial of Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that without specific jury instructions, there is a risk of the jury convicting Ms. Maxwell based on a 'constructive amendment' to the indictment, which would be a per se violation of her constitutional rights. The argument is supported by citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00008711.jpg
This document is page 5 of 83 from a court filing (Document 565) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 19, 2021. It serves as a Table of Contents listing Jury Instructions 49 through 59 and Concluding Remarks. Topics covered include the defendant's right not to testify, handling of witnesses, electronic communications, and jury conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008695.jpg
This document is a page from the jury instructions (Instruction No. 55) filed on December 18, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The instruction advises the jury that it is standard practice for witnesses to meet with lawyers (both Government and Defense) to prepare before testifying and that such preparation is not improper, though the jury may weigh it when assessing credibility. The document bears the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00008695.
DOJ-OGR-00005839.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the Government in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 29, 2021. The Government argues that the Court should deny the defendant's motion to preclude co-conspirator statements at trial, asserting the defense has misread a prior court order and is seeking an unprecedented remedy. The Government maintains that its handling of co-conspirator statements aligns with the established law of the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00002707.jpg
This document is page 14 of a defense filing (Document 148) in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that the government is using a specific diary as 'contemporaneous documentary corroboration' against Maxwell to oppose bail, yet refuses to provide the full diary or the author's name to the defense. The filing requests the Court order the government to either produce the complete diary or identify the author so the defense can issue a subpoena before trial.
DOJ-OGR-00002699.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense. The defense argues that despite receiving millions of pages of discovery in November 2020, there is almost no information regarding the specific allegations from the 1994-1997 indictment period. Consequently, the defense requests a 'bill of particulars,' early access to the government's witness list (Jencks Act material), and 404(b) evidence to adequately prepare for trial given the 25-year age of the case and COVID-19 delays.
DOJ-OGR-00020365.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, details the denial of a renewed bail request by Maxwell on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan denied the application, concluding that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple citizenships, financial resources, and a history of providing incomplete information to the court. The judge found that no combination of bail conditions could reasonably assure Maxwell's appearance at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00020354.jpg
This is page 2 of a court filing by the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The document addresses the Court's inquiries regarding the defendant's housing conditions at the MDC. It explains that she is housed alone due to safety concerns ('high-profile case', 'nature of charges') and her own expressed fears of the general population. It also states that the MDC cannot provide her with an eye mask because they are considered contraband, though she may use other non-contraband items to cover her eyes.
DOJ-OGR-00017459.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a brief exchange between Mr. Everdell and the court during the cross-examination of a person named Visoski, where the court announces its intention to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014514.jpg
This document is a transcript of a legal summation by Ms. Menninger, likely for the defense. The speaker attempts to discredit two individuals: an unnamed woman by questioning her claims of secret flights and a $5 million payment from the government, and Annie Farmer by highlighting a court instruction that her alleged encounter with Epstein and Maxwell was not illegal as charged, and by noting that she was introduced to Epstein by her sister, Maria, who worked for him.
DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Moe, representing the government, requests the opportunity to review binders of documents before they are presented to a witness or the jury. The Court affirms that the government and the Court must see any document before it is shown, clarifying the procedure for using such materials in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011642.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, discussing the anticipated testimony of Mr. Flatley. His testimony concerns the retrieval of metadata from devices seized from Epstein's home, and the possibility of Mr. Kelso serving as a rebuttal witness. The government and defense are preparing for this testimony and related disclosures, with Mr. Flatley having given similar testimony in other cases.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity