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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | A court proceeding where logistical matters are discussed, including a party's absence from a fut... | N/A | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Cross-examination | A witness named Rocchio is cross-examined in court regarding vulnerability factors related to sex... | Court in the Southern District | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding his opinion on a published article. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Daubert hearing | The court proceeds to a Daubert hearing regarding the government's proposed expert, Dr. Lisa Rocc... | N/A | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding grooming, risky sexual behav... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca regarding the scientific basis and error rat... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, during which a legal argument occurred between Mr... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding the tactics and strategies of the grooming proces... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | The beginning of the direct examination of witness Lisa Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Government Exhibit 3 was admitted into evidence and a witness, Dr. Rocchio,... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca regarding the existence of a definitive list... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court testimony regarding expert analysis of grooming strategies. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a study. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Recess | The court took a 30-minute luncheon recess at 12:55, scheduled to resume at 1:25. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit B. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Admission of evidence | Defendant's Exhibit A was admitted to the hearing record. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court hearing involving cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing of Document 782 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court testimony (Direct Examination) of witness Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Likely SDNY) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Filing date of the transcript document. | Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding psychological models of abuse. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 3 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding delayed disclosure studies. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit B into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001706.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on August 10, 2020, concerning the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that the government has delayed discovery production and failed to identify "Victims 1-3," which hinders the defense's ability to investigate allegations dating back 25 years involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text details the timeline of procedural events, protective orders, and discovery deadlines.
DOJ-OGR-00001704.jpg
This legal document is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order resolves a dispute in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN by adopting the Government's proposed protective order and rejecting the Defense's request for further restrictions on discovery materials as unwarranted and unprecedented.
DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated July 30, 2020. The Court rules in favor of the Government regarding a protective order, restricting Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team from publicly disclosing the identities of alleged victims and witnesses, even those who may have previously made public statements about Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The judge argues that participating in a criminal investigation warrants privacy protection distinct from previous voluntary public statements.
DOJ-OGR-00001700.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on July 30, 2020, outlines the procedures for handling discovery materials post-trial. It mandates that the Defense Counsel must return or destroy all discovery, including confidential information, within 30 days of the case's final resolution. The document also requires the Government and Defense Counsel to meet before any hearings or trial to agree on the presentation of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001698.jpg
Page 9 of a court order (Protective Order) from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document defines 'Highly Confidential Information' as materials containing sexualized images of individuals and outlines the strict limitations on its use, specifically prohibiting use in civil proceedings. It also establishes the protocol for the Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's classification of such materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001696.jpg
Page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed July 30, 2020) detailing a protective order regarding 'Confidential Information.' The text stipulates that the Defendant (identified as female) may only use such information for this specific criminal defense (not civil proceedings), may only review hard copies in the presence of Defense Counsel, and may only access electronic copies via the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
DOJ-OGR-00001694.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a Protective Order filed on July 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines strict protocols prohibiting the Defense team and potential witnesses from publicly disclosing the identities of victims or witnesses found in discovery materials, mandating that such references in court filings be made under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00001693.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court-filed Protective Order from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated July 30, 2020. It establishes strict rules for handling sensitive 'Discovery' materials, requiring Defense Counsel to encrypt information shared through non-email channels. The order explicitly prohibits all parties, including the Government, the Defendant, and their entire legal teams, from posting any Discovery information on the Internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00001689.jpg
This document is the final page of a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense counsel (Cohen & Gresser LLP) to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 29, 2020. The defense argues for a protective order to restrict prospective witnesses—specifically those who have also filed civil suits against Maxwell—from using criminal discovery materials to bolster their civil cases or leak information to the press. The document highlights the intertwined nature of the criminal indictment and existing civil complaints.
DOJ-OGR-00001677.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on July 28, 2020, outlines the rules for handling confidential information in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It stipulates that such information must be used solely for the defense, kept secure, and details specific protocols for how the defendant can access it in both hard copy and electronic formats, the latter involving the Bureau of Prisons. The Government's confidentiality designations are binding unless overturned by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001675.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order (Document 33-1) from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 28, 2020. The order restricts the defense team and other authorized persons from publicly disclosing or filing the identities of victims and witnesses found in discovery materials. Such information must be filed under seal unless specific written authorization is granted by the Government or the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001674.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court-filed Protective Order from July 28, 2020, in a criminal case. It outlines the rules for handling discovery materials, stating that all members of the defense team are bound by the order even without individual signatures. The order mandates that Defense Counsel must encrypt discovery shared through non-electronic means and strictly prohibits all parties from posting any discovery information on the internet or social media.
DOJ-OGR-00001667.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the defendant's broad proposal for a protective order, asserting that it would unfairly expose victims who made minor public statements years ago to intense public scrutiny without their consent. The government contends this is unnecessary for defense preparation and inconsistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
DOJ-OGR-00001658.jpg
This document is page 12 of 13 from a filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2020. It outlines legal stipulations regarding the handling of confidential information, specifically setting timelines relative to appeals and dismissals (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 2255). Paragraphs 19 and 20 detail that the provisions remain in effect until mutual written agreement or court order, and mandate that the Government and Defense Counsel meet to discuss evidence presentation prior to hearings or trial.
DOJ-OGR-00001656.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on July 27, 2020. It defines 'Highly Confidential Information' as potentially including nude or sexualized images and establishes strict rules for its use by the Defense Counsel, limiting it solely to the defense of the current criminal action. The document also provides a legal mechanism for the Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's 'Highly Confidential' designation of materials before the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00001621.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against granting bail to a defendant. The Government contends the defendant is a significant flight risk because she has access to millions of dollars, possesses a multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom, and is a citizen of a country that does not extradite to the United States. The proposed bail package, secured by foreign property, is deemed meaningless as the U.S. Government cannot easily seize foreign assets.
DOJ-OGR-00001620.jpg
This legal document is a memorandum from the Government arguing against the defendant's bail proposal. The Government asserts the defendant is a flight risk due to her considerable but undisclosed financial resources, her failure to submit a financial affidavit, and her history of lying under oath, specifically citing two counts of perjury from a 2016 civil suit. The document urges the Court to view the defendant as untrustworthy and deny the bail proposal, which it claims offers no security for her appearance.
DOJ-OGR-00001617.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges. The Government asserts that the charges are timely under the law, independent of a prior investigation, and that the defendant's claims are baseless. Furthermore, the document argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk due to her international ties, financial resources, and French citizenship, noting that France does not extradite its citizens to the U.S.
DOJ-OGR-00001613.jpg
This document is a legal filing from the government arguing against a defendant's proposed bail package. The government asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her opaque finances, access to extraordinary resources abroad, and demonstrated skill at hiding. The proposed $5 million bond is deemed insufficient because it relies on an overseas property as collateral and six unidentified co-signers whose ability or incentive to pay is unknown.
DOJ-OGR-00001604.jpg
This document is page 24 of a legal filing (Document 18) from July 10, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail due to COVID-19 risks and the adequacy of the proposed bail package. The defense proposes a $5 million bond co-signed by six individuals (siblings, relatives, friends) and secured by $3.75 million in UK property, along with home detention, GPS monitoring, and travel restrictions to NY districts. A footnote cites *United States v. Boustani* to argue that private security guards are appropriate given Maxwell's circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00001603.jpg
This page from a defense filing (dated July 10, 2020) argues for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. Her legal team contends that the government overstates her potential prison sentence (estimating 10 years rather than decades) and asserts the prosecution is legally flawed due to Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations issues regarding conduct from 1994-1997, and weak evidence based on decades-old testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00001585.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Preliminary Statement filed on July 10, 2020, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team. It serves as a Memorandum in Opposition to the government's request for detention. The text argues that Maxwell is being unfairly conflated with Jeffrey Epstein, despite having no contact with him for over a decade, and asserts she is not a flight risk as she has lived in the US since 1991 and remained in the country following Epstein's 2019 arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00001562.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated July 9, 2020, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order establishes procedures for court proceedings amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting seating to approximately 60 people on a first-come, first-served basis and outlining how counsel and the press can make seating requests. The document strictly prohibits any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of the proceedings, warning that violations may result in fines, sanctions, or denial of entry to future hearings.
DOJ-OGR-00001541.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on July 7, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It outlines strict COVID-19 entry protocols for the courthouse, instructions for defense counsel regarding the 'Waiver of Right to be Present' form, and mandates that the Government ensure crime victims are notified of proceedings and their rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
DOJ-OGR-00001439.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim regarding the confinement conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC. The text alleges severe mistreatment by prison staff, including physical abuse, withholding of food, destruction of legal documents, and excessive surveillance (including filming her showers). It also argues against flight risk allegations by citing monitored calls that demonstrate Maxwell's strong ties to the United States and desire to clear her name.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity