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 | Legal proceeding | The defense is requesting an evidentiary hearing to determine what happened regarding the abuse a... | court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Trial involving sex crimes, including testimony from Minor Victims and presentation of exhibits. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Submission of legal materials | The Government is submitting Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials (indices, transcripts, exhi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court scheduling discussion | Discussion regarding the court schedule, including jury presence, potential extended hours on Mon... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court discusses the admissibility of photographs of Jeffrey Epstein's apartment as evidence i... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The court ruling in the Annabi case established that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorne... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Sentencing | A binding recommendation for a thirty (30) month sentence, divided into consecutive jail terms (1... | 15th Judicial Circuit | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Cross-examination and redirect examination of a witness named Edelstein regarding knowledge of Ju... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Charging Conference where travel requirements were discussed. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A hearing where Juror 50 responded to the Court's questions. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case/trial | The Court in Libby ruled in favor of the defense and granted a motion to compel discovery. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case/trial | Marshall's trial for a drug-related transaction, which included a four-day adjournment to address... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A potential hearing where the Court can question Juror 50 about his answers on the questionnaire ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court instruction | The judge addressed the jury to confirm their schedule and remind them of COVID-19 safety protoco... | main courthouse | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The jury is conducting deliberations. They requested to end at 5:00 p.m. and resume the next day ... | jury room | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An inquiry into the conduct of Juror 50 during the voir dire process of the trial of Ghislaine Ma... | United States District Court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors who were gathered in groups of 100 or mor... | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An extradition request for a defendant is being considered, with legal uncertainty over when the ... | United States | View |
| N/A | Court directive | The Court directed the Government to state whether it had reviewed Maxwell's grand jury transcrip... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jury selection process (voir dire) where parties agreed on a number of prospective jurors to proc... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | During voir dire, Juror 50 was asked Question 49 about whether he or a family member had ever bee... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Juror No. 50 told the Court during voir dire that he had deleted his Instagram account. | Court | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | The Court ruled that the perjury charges against Maxwell must be severed and tried separately fro... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action/motion | Ms. Maxwell is drafting a Rule 33 motion to be filed on a schedule ordered by the Court. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal ruling | The court in 'this case' made no attempt to distinguish *Scharton* or *Noveck* and mischaracteriz... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001147.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2020, outlines the background of a six-count indictment against an unnamed defendant. The defendant is accused of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 to facilitate the sexual abuse of minors, and later committing perjury during a civil deposition to cover up the crimes. The document argues that the defendant is an extreme flight risk and the court should not alter its prior finding on this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00001136.jpg
This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 102) dated December 14, 2020, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. It contends that her proposed $28.5 million bond package exceeds necessary requirements for ensuring her presence in court. The document features a table comparing Maxwell's proposed bail conditions (including private security and electronic monitoring) to those of other high-profile defendants like Bernie Madoff and Khashoggi, highlighting that her package is stricter than those previously granted release.
DOJ-OGR-00001132.jpg
This document is page 30 of a defense filing (Document 197) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, dated December 14, 2020. The defense argues that despite the government's initial claims of 'strong' evidence backed by flight logs and diaries, the discovery produced (over 1.2 million documents) contains 'no meaningful documentary corroboration' of the allegations for the indictment period of 1994-1997. The text notes that the majority of evidence produced relates to the 2000s and 2010s, and mentions electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00001125.jpg
This document is a page from a defense motion filed on December 14, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell did not attempt to evade arrest or flee. Defense counsel claims the 'raid' on her New Hampshire home was unnecessary and theatrical, timed to the anniversary of Epstein's arrest. It addresses specific allegations, such as a cell phone wrapped in tin foil, explaining these were security measures against the press, supported by a statement from the (redacted) head of her security team.
DOJ-OGR-00001119.jpg
This page from a defense filing argues for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail, citing a 'Macalvins report' to refute Government claims that her finances are opaque. The defense states that Maxwell and her spouse have total assets of approximately $22.5 million, which they offer as the bond amount, and asserts she has properly filed all FBAR and tax documents. A footnote heavily redacts the name of a specific bank involved in her finances.
DOJ-OGR-00001117.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell has addressed the court's concerns about her finances, which were raised at an initial bail hearing. Her defense counsel hired a UK accounting firm, Macalvins, to conduct a thorough five-year financial analysis, and a former IRS Special Agent and Certified Fraud Examiner reviewed and validated this analysis as complete and accurate. The purpose is to demonstrate financial transparency to the court to establish suitable bail conditions.
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
This legal document argues for the reconsideration of Ms. Maxwell's bail application. It cites several legal precedents that allow a court to reopen bail hearings based on new evidence or changed circumstances. The primary new evidence cited is the voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produced by the government after the initial hearing, which the defense claims raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
DOJ-OGR-00001107.jpg
This legal document argues for Ms. Maxwell to be released on restrictive bail. Her defense contends that the government's case lacks corroborating evidence, relies on old testimony, and that her oppressive confinement conditions at the MDC, including a COVID-19 outbreak, are unjust and impede her ability to prepare her defense. The filing also asserts she is not a flight risk, citing expert opinions on extradition from the UK and France.
DOJ-OGR-00001106.jpg
This legal document is part of a court filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense team, presenting new information to support a renewed bail application. The defense provides several pieces of evidence, including a letter from her spouse, character references from friends and family, and a detailed financial report from the firm Macalvins Limited showing assets of approximately $22.5 million. The filing aims to demonstrate Ms. Maxwell's strong ties to the U.S. and counter arguments that she is a flight risk or was hiding from law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00001105.jpg
This legal document outlines a series of proposed conditions for the pretrial release of Ms. Maxwell. The conditions include home confinement in New York City with GPS monitoring, supervision by Pretrial Services, surrender of travel documents, and the presence of 24/7 private security guards paid for by Ms. Maxwell. The document argues that these measures, supported by legal precedent from the Second Circuit, are sufficient to ensure she will not flee and will appear in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001103.jpg
This document is the preliminary statement of a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, supporting Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail. It outlines new information not present at her initial hearing, including details on family ties in the US, a financial report covering her and her spouse, extradition waivers for the UK and France, and arguments against flight risk. Maxwell asserts her innocence, claims the government's case relies on uncorroborated testimony from 25 years ago, and requests release to prepare her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00001092.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, regarding the denial of bail for Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rules that she is a significant flight risk due to her foreign connections and ability to evade security. The judge dismisses the defense's comparisons to other high-profile cases (Esposito, Dreier, Madoff) as unpersuasive due to factual differences, and notes the defense's argument regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
DOJ-OGR-00001090.jpg
This legal document, dated April 1, 2021, is a court's ruling regarding the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The court concludes that Ms. Maxwell is a substantial flight risk and that the government has met its burden to show that no conditions of release would be sufficient. The court also finds her proposed bail package, secured by a foreign property worth several million dollars, to be insufficient, citing her failure to provide a full accounting of her financial situation.
DOJ-OGR-00001074.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is making a concluding argument to a judge to grant bail for his client. He argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving the client is a flight risk, distinguishing the current case from others and citing a precedent from Judge Raggi in the Sabhnani case before formally requesting the court to grant bail.
DOJ-OGR-00001071.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, in which an attorney, Mr. Cohen, argues that his client's detention has limited his access to her, making it difficult to gather financial information. He contends it is unreasonable for Pretrial Services to expect his client to recall details of a real estate transaction offhand, citing complications from the COVID crisis and legal precedents. Mr. Cohen also informs the court that the government requires until November to complete discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00001065.jpg
This document is a court transcript in which an attorney refutes the government's allegations about their client's finances. The attorney argues the government has exaggerated the number of bank accounts, explains a $500,000 transfer as a maturing bond, and attributes another large transfer to the financial fallout their client experienced after Mr. Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00001052.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021. An attorney, Mr. Cohen, is arguing a point by citing past high-profile cases like Madoff, Dreier, and Esposito. The judge interrupts to question the relevance of these precedents, specifically asking if those defendants had substantial international connections, which distinguishes them from the current case. Mr. Cohen admits they did not, highlighting that the current defendant's foreign ties are a key point of contention.
DOJ-OGR-00001048.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney is addressing a judge. The attorney argues that their client, people close to the client, and even the law firm (Haddon Morgan) have received serious physical and death threats, which they present as a significant factor for the court's consideration. The attorney contrasts the reality of these threats with the government's alleged attempts to downplay them.
DOJ-OGR-00001045.jpg
This page of a court transcript records the conclusion of a victim impact statement by Ms. Farmer urging the detention of Ghislaine Maxwell due to flight risk and the severity of her alleged crimes. Following this, the Court confirms with the government representative, Ms. Moe, that there are no other victims wishing to speak and clarifies that the government is not seeking specific findings regarding danger to the community for pretrial detention purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00001016.jpg
This document is a court transcript from April 1, 2021, in which a government representative, Ms. Moe, outlines the scope of materials to be provided in discovery. These materials include search warrants, subpoena returns, electronic data, and files from a prior investigation in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Moe also updates the court on the status of a proposed protective order being negotiated with the defense counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00001013.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated April 1, 2021, where the judge justifies holding the proceeding with COVID-19 safety measures, referencing a national emergency and ensuring public trial rights are upheld. The judge then transitions to the arraignment, confirming with counsel Ms. Moe that it is for an S1 superseding indictment and asking for an explanation of the changes from the original indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00000995.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against granting bail to a defendant charged with serious crimes. The Government asserts the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her extensive foreign ties, significant assets including a multi-million dollar property in the United Kingdom, and citizenship in a country that does not extradite to the United States. The filing dismisses the proposed bail package, which relies on foreign property as collateral, as providing "effectively no security at all" because the U.S. Government cannot seize foreign assets.
DOJ-OGR-00000994.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing by the Government arguing against granting bail to the defendant. The prosecution contends that the defendant is a significant flight risk due to her considerable but undisclosed financial resources and her history of dishonesty, including alleged perjury in a 2016 civil suit. The document criticizes the defendant's bail proposal for offering no security and for her failure to submit a financial affidavit, which prevents the Court from assessing her true ability to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00000988.jpg
This page is from a government filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated July 2, 2020, arguing for the defendant's detention pending trial. The government argues that despite COVID-19 concerns, the defendant should remain at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) like other inmates, citing her significant assets, foreign ties, and history of evading detection as flight risks. The document also introduces an argument based on the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), noting that victims and their counsel have been contacted and seek her detention.
DOJ-OGR-00000987.jpg
This document is page 2 of a government legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated July 13, 2020, arguing against the defendant's release on bail. The government asserts that the defendant is a flight risk with opaque finances, has the ability to live in France to avoid extradition, and has proposed an insufficient $5 million bond backed by unidentified co-signers and foreign property of no collateral value to the U.S. court.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity