| 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 | Legal hearing | A Daubert hearing, which the Court references when asking Ms. Pomerantz if the disputed question ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | The legal proceeding for which this pre-trial motion's table of contents is prepared. | The Court | View |
| N/A | Trial resumption | The trial is scheduled to resume at 9:00 a.m. on the upcoming Monday, following a long weekend. | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court ordered the defendant detained pending trial after concluding electronic monitoring was... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion took place between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding a juror's scheduling conflic... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Juror 50 gave sworn testimony about his ability to be an impartial juror. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document outlines the rules for handling Confidential Information during the course of procee... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The document discusses the legal process of voir dire, specifically how the court can limit attor... | this district | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn regarding a prior deposition. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal conference | A conference held on November 23rd where the limiting instruction was previously discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal argument | A discussion in court between MS. MOE and THE COURT about whether a conspiracy was still ongoing ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A court verdict was issued against Ghislaine. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A discussion about case timing and scheduling after the jury was dismissed for the evening. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A proposed charge conference to be held either on the evening of the 16th or on Saturday the 18th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | An attorney, Ms. Davis, is addressing the court regarding a prior verdict and a motion for a new ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A future sentencing hearing where Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre may present in-person ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A potential 'in camera review' of acknowledgments by the Court if good cause is demonstrated. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court gave two limiting instructions to the jury regarding the testimonies of Kate and Annie ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court denied the Defendant's Rule 29 motion. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A hearing where Juror 50 testified about his conduct during the questionnaire and voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The voir dire process, during which Juror 50 answered the Court's questions in person and affirme... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The trial, during which Juror 50 was observed by the Court to be attentive. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the end date of a conspiracy and the admissibility of evidence fr... | Southern District Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A proposed charging conference to be held on a Friday. | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A hearing was held regarding a juror's conduct and potential bias. | N/A | View |
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 172) dated March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell has been transparent about her assets, including those held jointly with her spouse, and that the government's argument regarding asset control and flight risk is illogical. A footnote strongly defends the integrity of Maxwell's New York legal team against the government's implication that they would use escrow funds to help her flee as a fugitive.
This document is the conclusion page (Page 9) of a legal filing submitted on March 9, 2021, by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The filing argues that the defendant (identified by case number as Ghislaine Maxwell) poses a substantial flight risk and that their 'Third Bail Motion' should be denied. The document is signed by Assistant US Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz.
This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's request for bail. The government contends that the defendant's offer to renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom is not a reliable guarantee against her fleeing the country, as the renunciation could be legally challenged later and does not prevent flight to a third country without an extradition treaty. The filing cites precedent from a similar case (United States v. Cohen) to argue that such offers should be given little weight and that the court's prior decision to detain the defendant should stand.
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated February 23, 2021, submitted by the legal team of Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorneys argue that proposed restrictive bail conditions, including renunciation of foreign citizenship and asset monitoring, are sufficient to ensure her appearance at trial. They conclude that denying bail under these circumstances would constitute a miscarriage of justice.
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (dated Dec 28, 2020) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text outlines proposed conditions including home detention, renunciation of foreign citizenship, and asset monitoring by a retired judge and former US Attorney. It compares her situation to the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, noting that he was granted bail despite being a foreign citizen arrested while attempting to leave the country on serious sexual assault charges, whereas Maxwell faces 26-year-old claims.
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on March 23, 2021, arguing for the release of Ghislaine Maxwell on bail. The defense proposes restraining Maxwell's and her spouse's assets under the supervision of a former federal judge to prevent flight. The text also argues that pending pretrial motions—including challenges based on a non-prosecution agreement, constitutional violations, and time-barred Mann Act charges—significantly weaken the government's case.
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 23, 2021, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The text outlines that Maxwell has renounced her foreign citizenship (France/UK) to address extradition concerns and proposes a strict asset monitoring system where all liquid assets belonging to her and her spouse will be moved to a 'New Account' overseen by a court-appointed monitor. This is intended to mitigate the Court's fear that her wealth could be used to facilitate flight.
This is a page from a legal filing (likely a renewed bail application) for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 23, 2021. The defense argues that new bond conditions secure her assets to prevent flight, cites twelve pretrial motions filed by January 25 that challenge the government's case, and claims she has been unfairly demonized by the media as a 'substitute replacement' for Jeffrey Epstein. The document asserts Maxwell's determination to face her accusers at trial.
This legal document is a court ruling denying a defendant's release from the MDC, a detention facility experiencing a significant COVID-19 outbreak. The Court acknowledges the health risks but ultimately finds that the defendant poses a substantial flight risk and has no underlying health conditions that would justify release. The Court also determines that a new hearing is unnecessary, as the reasons from a prior hearing on July 14, 2020, still apply.
This legal document is a court ruling denying a defendant's request for release from pre-trial detention. The Court finds that the government has shown the defendant is a flight risk and rejects her argument that her conditions of confinement, including a recent COVID-19 lockdown, unconstitutionally interfere with her ability to prepare her defense. The Court concludes she has been given adequate time and resources to communicate with her attorneys.
This legal document details a court's reasoning for finding a defendant's proposed bail package insufficient to prevent flight risk. Despite proposals for home confinement, GPS monitoring, and custody by a family member, the court concludes that the defendant's vast unrestrained wealth means the financial package does not meaningfully mitigate the possibility of her fleeing.
This legal document page discusses a bail hearing for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It recounts that the Court initially found her financial disclosures incomplete but notes she has since provided a more detailed report from a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, covering 2015-2020. Despite the new report, which was also reviewed by a former IRS agent, the Court remains unpersuaded that the proposed bail package, secured by property, cash, and bonds, would reasonably assure her appearance in court.
This legal document outlines a court's reasoning for continuing the pretrial detention of a defendant. The Court finds that the defendant has demonstrated a significant 'lack of candor' regarding her finances, particularly in representations made to Pretrial Services, and therefore poses a flight risk. A proposed $28.5 million bail package is deemed insufficient to reasonably assure her appearance at future proceedings.
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion, concerning a bail motion for a defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court reaffirms its conclusion that the defendant is a flight risk due to her substantial international ties, multiple foreign citizenships (including French), and connections abroad. The document analyzes the defendant's offer to waive extradition rights from France and the UK, noting that the legal weight of such waivers is contested, particularly in light of a letter from the French Ministry of Justice stating that French law "absolutely prohibits" the extradition of its nationals.
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's renewed motion for bail, filed on August 30, 2020. The defendant argues for release, claiming the government's case is weak, lacks documentary evidence, and relies almost solely on the testimony of three unidentified accusers. The Court disagrees with the defendant's assessment and reaffirms its earlier decision to deny bail, finding that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future proceedings.
This legal document is a court filing from June 30, 2020, which denies a defendant's motion for bail. The court explains that a legal presumption in favor of detention applies, particularly because the defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim, which suffices to establish probable cause. The document clarifies that the defendant bears a limited burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption.
This page from a defense filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues that the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell relies entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of three accusers, specifically noting that Counts Two and Four rely solely on 'Minor Victim-1'. The defense asserts that the government only began issuing subpoenas regarding Maxwell after Jeffrey Epstein's death, suggesting the case was assembled 'after the fact'. A large block of text regarding specific government evidence is redacted.
This is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on December 28, 2020, arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail. The defense argues that the government has conceded its case relies almost entirely on the testimony of three unidentified witnesses regarding events from over 25 years ago, rather than 'significant contemporaneous documentary evidence' as previously claimed. The document asserts that existing documentary evidence pertains to Jeffrey Epstein, not Maxwell, and notes that specific government concessions on this matter are redacted in the text.
This legal document, filed by the Government, argues against the release of a defendant from the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The filing asserts that the MDC has adequately addressed the defendant's complaints about her diet and security searches, and that precautionary measures taken after a potential COVID-19 exposure were effective. The Government concludes that because the defendant has no underlying health conditions, the pandemic does not warrant her release.
This document is page 25 of a Government filing (likely opposing bail) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 28, 2020. It argues that Maxwell is a flight risk who evaded the FBI during her arrest (including wrapping a phone in tin foil) and was deceptive with Pretrial Services regarding her 'vast resources,' which far exceed the $3.8 million she initially disclosed. The text asserts that her wealth and willingness to deceive make detention necessary.
This document is a page from a Government filing (likely opposing bail) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant is a flight risk, noting that she actively hid from law enforcement and the media, and that her lawyers refused to disclose her location to the Government despite ongoing communications in 2019 and 2020. The text details the circumstances of her arrest, stating that she ignored FBI directives and ran away from clearly identified agents to hide in an inner room.
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) argues against granting bail to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell). The prosecution details her sophisticated efforts to evade detection in the year prior to her arrest, including purchasing a home through a trust, using aliases with real estate agents, and holding assets/credit cards under false names. The document asserts these actions prove she is a flight risk capable of assuming a new identity.
This document is page 13 of a government filing opposing bail for a female defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell, based on the case number). The prosecution argues she is a flight risk due to her three passports, foreign wealth, and lack of employment or children in the US. It highlights inconsistencies in her statements, noting she previously claimed to be divorcing her husband but is now using the marriage to argue for ties to the US, while simultaneously asking to live with a redacted third party rather than said husband.
This is a page from a government legal filing opposing bail for Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on December 18, 2020. The prosecution argues that despite a lack of specific documentary evidence for every abusive act, the case remains strong due to victim testimony and corroborating documents linking her to Epstein. It further argues for continued detention based on her 'significant foreign ties,' 'millions of dollars in cash' transferred to her spouse, and a 'sophisticated ability to live in hiding.'
This document is page 4 (stamped page 7 of 36) of a legal filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It details the Court's reasoning for denying bail and detaining Maxwell, citing her serious flight risk, lack of U.S. ties, French citizenship (non-extradition), and extraordinary financial resources. The Court also noted that Maxwell's financial disclosures to Pretrial Services were likely incomplete.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity