The Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Shechtman
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
136 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
61 | |
|
person
MS. DAVIS
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Members of the jury
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MR. FOY
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Cohen
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Mr. Parkinson
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROSSMILLER
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Weinberg
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Days
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. COHEN
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. OKULA
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Judicial |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Trzaskoma
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. CHIUCHIOLO
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Juror court |
7
|
3 |
| 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-00011618.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00011611.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The judge outlines the rationale for a substantial sentence, citing the gravity of the offense, the harm to victims, and the need for general deterrence against sexual abuse and trafficking of minors. The judge emphasizes that Maxwell's wealth and status do not place her above the law.
DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript, likely from a sentencing hearing for a defendant named Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The speaker, presumably her attorney, argues for a lenient sentence by highlighting her age (over 60), lack of prior criminal history, and positive contributions while incarcerated, such as tutoring fellow inmates in the MDC. The attorney contrasts her good character with the 'terrible conduct' for which she is being sentenced.
DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg
This document is page 53 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court overrules an objection regarding the inclusion of assets in the Presentence Report (PSR), specifically noting a $10 million bequest from Jeffrey Epstein to Maxwell. The Judge determines that Maxwell has failed to establish an inability to pay a fine, citing the bequest and $3.8 million in assets reported in July 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from July 22, 2022, discussing a defendant's conviction for sex trafficking a victim named Carolyn. The court refutes the defense's argument against an "undue influence" sentencing enhancement, finding that the defendant exploited Carolyn's financial needs for her drug addiction and newborn son. The court concludes that taking advantage of a victim's financial vulnerability constitutes undue influence, referencing testimony from Carolyn and other victims (Jane, Annie) who received payments.
DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court hearing on July 22, 2022, discussing factual objections and the calculation of sentencing guidelines. The Court, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe participate in the discussion, with the Court adopting PSR recitations and outlining the process for guideline calculation. The defense contends a guideline calculation of 51 to 63 months' imprisonment, while the government's contention is cut off.
DOJ-OGR-00005734.jpg
This is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. In the document, Maxwell's defense requests that the Court exclude evidence seized during a search of 358 El Brillo Way on October 20, 2005, as well as Government Exhibit 295 (an affidavit). The page cites Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts regarding the admission of out-of-court affidavits.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017962.jpg
This document is the final signature page (page 28) of a legal complaint filed on April 16, 2019, in Case 1:19-cv-03377. It includes a prayer for relief in excess of $75,000 and a formal Jury Demand. The document is signed by attorneys Joshua Schiller and Sigrid McCawley of the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to Congress.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017345.jpg
This document recounts a legal case involving a young violinist accused of rape by a female college student, a charge deemed implausible by Itzhak Perlman and the narrator due to the physical disparities between the accuser and the accused. Despite a conviction by a judge in a bench trial, the conviction was later reversed on appeal due to the defense being denied access to the complainant's psychiatric records, leading the prosecution to drop the case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017262.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of the 'Tison v. Arizona' case discussed) describing Supreme Court oral arguments. The text details the legal debate regarding the 'felony murder' rule, specifically whether the brothers (Ricky and Raymond) had the specific intent to kill the Lyons family or were merely present. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of the Congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, likely included to illustrate the author's legal philosophy or history.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015654.jpg
This document is the conclusion page (page 5) of a legal filing dated February 8, 2016. Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, representing non-party Virginia Giuffre, requests the court to allow a limited release of Giuffre's confidential deposition transcript to law enforcement. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015654.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015653.jpg
This document is a legal filing (page 4) arguing that Defendant Alan Dershowitz must produce witnesses, including Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, if he wishes to pursue issues regarding Bill Clinton's travel. It highlights that Dershowitz invoked attorney-client privilege during his January 2016 deposition when asked if Virginia Roberts was lying about Clinton socializing with Epstein. It also notes Epstein's refusal to be deposed despite court orders.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015627.jpg
This document is page 7 of a response in the case Edwards v. Dershowitz (CACE 15-000072). It details discovery disputes between victims' counsel (Edwards and Cassell) and the Government regarding the production of documents and the attempt to add Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe No. 3) to the case in 2014. The text highlights the Government's delay tactics and eventual refusal to stipulate the addition of new victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013384.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely by attorney Brad Edwards) argues that discovery efforts targeting Jeffrey Epstein's friends were necessary and valid. It highlights that Epstein and his household staff—who helped recruit minor girls—pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about activities at the West Palm Beach mansion. The document asserts that evidence of other sexual abuse is admissible to prove modus operandi or motive.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021933.jpg
This page is a rough draft transcript of a deposition involving the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp 021933). A witness is being questioned about why they filed a motion accusing Professor Alan Dershowitz without contacting him first to verify facts or ask for refutation. The witness explains that the U.S. Attorney's Office had delayed answering a request for consent for months (dating back to Summer 2014), leading to a court filing on January 21, 2015. The witness begins to explain the decision not to contact Dershowitz as a 'cost benefit situation' before the page ends.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity