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-00001436.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 220) from the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) dated March 5, 2021, regarding the incarceration conditions of the defendant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses safety concerns necessitating her isolation and responds to a court inquiry by stating that MDC cannot provide an eye mask as it is considered contraband, though she may use other items. A footnote clarifies that her current housing was determined partly due to her own safety concerns regarding the general population and as an alternative to the SHU.
DOJ-OGR-00001431.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 29, 2021, is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court regarding the confinement conditions of her client, Ms. Maxwell, at the MDC. Sternheim requests the Court to order the MDC to stop the disruptive 15-minute flashlight surveillance of Ms. Maxwell and argues that the threat of placing her in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) is ironic and unwarranted, as her only contact is with staff.
DOJ-OGR-00001402.jpg
This legal document is a letter from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court, filed on February 7, 2021, concerning her client, Ms. Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the Court's request for public updates on Maxwell's confinement is harmful, fueling negative media attention and jeopardizing her right to a fair trial. The letter criticizes the government's actions and requests that any future updates on Maxwell's condition be filed under seal to protect her privacy and legal rights.
DOJ-OGR-00001393.jpg
A legal filing from the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim arguing for a continuance of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial. The defense cites the difficulties of preparing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to investigate new charges and 'quarter-century-old allegations,' and the review of voluminous discovery produced in November 2020. The document criticizes the government's timeline estimates and their opposition to the delay.
DOJ-OGR-00001385.jpg
This document is the 'Conclusion' section of a legal filing (likely an appeal brief) dated April 19, 2021, arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that Maxwell is not a flight risk, that the government's case is weak and based on 'old, anonymous accusations,' and that she cannot prepare for trial under her current 'appalling' prison conditions. The text heavily criticizes the government for relying on the specter of Jeffrey Epstein to justify her detention without a proper adversarial hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00001383.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues on behalf of Ms. Maxwell against the Government's handling of her abuse allegations. The defense claims the Government's conclusion that the abuse was 'unfounded' is a 'self-serving proclamation' based on a Bureau of Prisons video review that neither the prosecutors, court, nor defense have seen. The document demands the video be produced for review and accuses the Government of hypocrisy and a desire to humiliate Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00001375.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal reply brief filed on April 19, 2021, in Case 21-770 (associated with Ghislaine Maxwell). The defense argues that the lower court did not conduct a 'lengthy bail hearing' and that the Government presented no actual evidence, relying solely on the text of the Indictment to argue the strength of the case and flight risk. The filing contends the court erred by accepting the Indictment itself as proof of the strength of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00001364.jpg
This document is the signature page (Page 6) of a legal filing submitted on July 6, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz on behalf of U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, stating that the Government is willing to provide further details to the Court if necessary.
DOJ-OGR-00001358.jpg
This document is page 2 of a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) regarding the confinement conditions of the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). It details security protocols including daily emails with counsel, twice-daily pat-down searches, weekly body scans, and nightly flashlight checks every 15 minutes to ensure the inmate is breathing. The government asserts these measures are necessary for safety and clarifies that strip searches are currently suspended due to lack of in-person visitation.
DOJ-OGR-00001327.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 12, 2021. It details Judge Nathan's findings that Maxwell remains a significant flight risk due to her extraordinary financial resources, multiple foreign citizenships, and lack of employment. The text notes that despite letters of support and offers to waive extradition rights, the court found the risk of flight fundamentally unchanged and the case against her strong.
DOJ-OGR-00001326.jpg
This document details the denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's second bail application, originally submitted on December 8, 2020. Judge Nathan ruled that Maxwell posed a significant flight risk due to her substantial resources, foreign ties (including citizenship in a non-extradition country), and lack of candor regarding her finances. The judge also noted the strength of the Government's case and the seriousness of the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00001322.jpg
This legal document describes the initial bail hearing for a defendant named Maxwell, which took place on July 14, 2020. During the hearing, Judge Nathan heard arguments and received statements from victims, including Annie Farmer, who accused Maxwell of grooming and abuse. Based on the testimony and risk of flight, Judge Nathan ordered Maxwell to be detained.
DOJ-OGR-00001304.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on Feb 6, 2021, in Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV (United States v. Robertson). The Court is rejecting the government's proposed alternatives to release, specifically arguing that interview rooms with 'screens' at the Santa Fe courthouse or jail are inadequate for effective trial preparation because attorneys cannot sit next to the defendant, Mr. Robertson, to review documents. The Court also scolds the government for presenting these alternatives too late, noting they should have been raised before the unfavorable ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00001303.jpg
This legal document is a filing by Mr. Robertson's defense team arguing against the government's motion for reconsideration of his pretrial release. The defense contends that continued detention, especially with COVID-19 restrictions in jails, prevents the necessary in-person meetings required to build trust and adequately prepare for trial, thereby infringing on his right to a fair trial. They assert that his release is essential for the preparation of his defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001300.jpg
This legal document outlines the Court's decision to grant Mr. Robertson release to a halfway house under extremely strict conditions, including home incarceration and GPS monitoring. The Court details numerous restrictions on his movement, communication, and contact with others, believing these measures are sufficient to ensure community safety and prevent flight risk. The document also notes a pretrial conference where Mr. Robertson was warned that any violation would result in immediate reincarceration.
DOJ-OGR-00001299.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes the case for the pre-trial release of a defendant, Mr. Robertson. The Court weighs his history of probation violations and non-violent convictions against the lack of evidence for violent behavior and the government's unsubstantiated claims of witness intimidation. The document emphasizes the legal principle of presumption of innocence in considering Mr. Robertson's danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001298.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court order regarding the pretrial release of a defendant named Mr. Robertson. The court discusses the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), noting the serious nature of the charges, which involve Robertson allegedly shooting a victim (D.S.) in retaliation for cooperating with the government. While the evidence is described as 'mixed' due to conflicting factors regarding identification, the court notes incriminating statements made to a witness (N.F.). The document appears to be part of a DOJ FOIA release (DOJ-OGR-00001298).
DOJ-OGR-00001294.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Robertson, asking the court to reconsider its denial of his pretrial release. The motion argues for reconsideration based on new evidence, specifically unforeseen trial continuances and new potential placement options, including with the grandmother of his children and at La Pasada Halfway House. The document cites legal precedent to establish that the court has the authority to amend its prior orders.
DOJ-OGR-00001292.jpg
This legal document, a Memorandum Opinion and Order, outlines the background of a criminal case against Mr. Robertson. He is charged with multiple felonies, including obstruction of justice for allegedly shooting an informant, D.S., in September 2017. The document notes that Robertson has been in pretrial detention for over three years and that his trial, originally set for March 2020, was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and is now scheduled for April 5, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00001291.jpg
This document is a Memorandum Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding Defendant Dashawn Robertson's motion for reconsideration of his detention order. After reviewing various filings and holding a pretrial conference on February 4, 2021, the Court ordered Mr. Robertson's release under strict conditions to La Pasada Halfway House on February 5, 2021. The decision was made to ensure his appearance in court and community safety, and to facilitate his trial preparation, which was hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic affecting communication with his attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00001284.jpg
This document is a court order denying a defendant's motion for bail. The Court finds that the defendant would retain access to substantial assets, including $450,000 for living expenses and other valuables worth hundreds of thousands, which constitutes a significant flight risk. The Court concludes that no set of conditions can reasonably guarantee the defendant's future appearance in court and therefore denies the motion.
DOJ-OGR-00001282.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the legal uncertainty surrounding the timing of nationality assessment for a defendant's extradition between the United States and France. It contrasts the government's position that nationality is determined at the time of the offense with the defendant's expert view that it's at the time of the extradition request. The document highlights that conflicting interpretations of the U.S.-France Extradition Treaty and French law create ambiguity that could frustrate or bar the extradition.
DOJ-OGR-00001276.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 22, 2021, discusses the legal standard for a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The central issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the motion while the defendant's separate bail appeal is pending, with the document citing case law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to outline the court's authority in such a situation.
DOJ-OGR-00001265.jpg
This document is the conclusion page of a legal motion filed on March 16, 2021, requesting bail for Ghislaine Maxwell. It lists her defense team (Sternheim, Everdell, Pagliuca, Menninger) and includes a significant footnote detailing complaints about her confinement at the MDC. Specifically, the footnote alleges violations of attorney-client privilege during video conferences due to guard proximity and audio recording, as well as a denial of legal calls regarding pretrial motions.
DOJ-OGR-00001262.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, dated March 23, 2021. It argues that the government's case is weakening, citing the 2007 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement as a bar to prosecution and claiming the government cannot prove Accuser-3 was a minor during alleged interstate travel. The defense also alleges that prosecutors misled a federal judge to obtain evidence, undermining the integrity of the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity