2d Cir.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00000152.tif
This document is a legal opinion or court order concerning pretrial proceedings related to Maxwell. It addresses motions in limine, pretrial disclosures, and scheduling, citing legal precedents like United States v. Thompson and United States v. Percevault. The Court sets a schedule for disclosures and notes that the S2 superseding indictment moots Maxwell's grand jury challenge.
DOJ-OGR-00000135.tif
This document discusses legal arguments made by Maxwell to dismiss an indictment, focusing on the unavailability of witnesses and the impact of pretrial publicity. It references the Palm Beach investigation into Epstein and questions the credibility of potential testimony from Epstein himself, while noting that Maxwell's reputation has shifted from Epstein's friend to a co-conspirator.
DOJ-OGR-00000076.tif
This legal document discusses the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges related to the sexual abuse of minors, focusing on the application of § 3283. It references the Weingarten v. United States case, which established a 'case-specific approach' for interpreting statutory provisions, and notes that one of the victims is identified as 'Jane'. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Sampson, Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Maxwell, and Taylor v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00015107.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, argues for the unsealing of grand jury transcripts related to Epstein and Maxwell's criminal scheme, advocating for the redaction of victims' names while opposing similar protection for third-party enablers. It references a July 6, 2025 Memorandum and several civil cases, asserting that transparency and accountability necessitate the release of information concerning individuals involved in sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the legal standards for pre-trial detention concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's dual burden to prove she is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance in court. The document also discusses the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption against release and how the defense can counter it, noting that unlike in the Epstein case, the government is not arguing that Ms. Maxwell is a danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00001456.jpg
This legal document, dated May 27, 2021, addresses post-conviction bail proceedings concerning 'Maxwell.' It clarifies that an Order regarding security checks at the MDC is not a bail determination and that Maxwell's 'renewed motion' for bail is substantively meritless. The document affirms Judge Nathan's prior findings that Maxwell is a risk of flight and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00001145.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing dated June 25, 2018, associated with case number 201cr7-00330-AJN. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases cited as legal precedent, with decisions spanning from 1985 to 2019. The vast majority of the cases listed are criminal proceedings with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00001100.jpg
This document is a "Table of Authorities" from a legal filing, specifically page iii of a larger document. It lists thirteen federal court cases, providing their full citations, the dates of the decisions, and the page numbers within the filing where each case is referenced. All listed cases feature the United States as a party.
DOJ-OGR-00021054.jpg
This document is page 'vi' (Page 7 of 113) of a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, bearing the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021054. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents referenced in the main brief, including cases such as 'Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S.' and 'Martin v. Hadix'. The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice filing, likely related to a FOIA case or appeal given the OGR marking.
DOJ-OGR-00021053.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00020426.jpg
This document is a court docket log from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing filings and orders from May 17 to May 25, 2021. The entries primarily concern pre-trial motions filed by Maxwell's defense team, including motions to suppress evidence, strike surplusage, and dismiss the superseding indictment. The log also records correspondence with Judge Alison J. Nathan from both the defense and the prosecution (USA) regarding document redactions and scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00002367(1).jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues that the court has the inherent authority to suppress evidence obtained through the government's misrepresentation. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that this power is not limited to misconduct within the immediate courtroom but can extend to related actions in other proceedings. The core argument is that the government's deception was essential to obtaining the factual basis for certain counts, and therefore, the resulting evidence should be suppressed.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(3).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It notes that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to turn the suit into a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to add a 'law enforcement' exception to a court-mandated Protective Order, which Maxwell rejected. The case ultimately settled before trial, rendering certain provisions of the Protective Order moot.
DOJ-OGR-00002302(1).jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as an index, listing the legal precedents—including court cases, federal statutes, state law, and constitutional provisions—that are cited in the associated legal brief. The authorities listed are used to support the arguments made in the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002239.jpg
This document is a page from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court denies the Defendant's motion for bail, explaining that under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), a presumption in favor of detention applies because the Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for an offense involving a minor victim. The document cites case law (Contreras and Jessup) to affirm that an indictment establishes probable cause and places a limited burden on the Defendant to produce evidence to counter the presumption of detention.
DOJ-OGR-00001857.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated November 30, 2020, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, requesting permission to file a redacted bail application for Ms. Maxwell. The author argues that redactions are necessary to protect the privacy and safety of third parties, such as financial sureties, from the intense media speculation that would follow any disclosure of their identities. The letter cites legal precedent and the privacy protections previously afforded to Ms. Maxwell's accusers as justification for the request.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, filed 07/27/2023) arguing legal precedents for 'third-party beneficiary' standing in non-prosecution and plea agreements. It cites multiple cases (*Stolt-Nielsen*, *Florida West Int'l Airways*, *El-Sadig*, *CFW Const. Co.*) to establish that individuals not explicitly named or communicated with can still be immune from prosecution if they are intended beneficiaries of an agreement between the government and another party. This legal argument is central to the defense's claims regarding the 2007 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021748.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and statutes cited within the main document, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed primarily involve the United States as a party against various individuals and corporations in different federal courts.
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
DOJ-OGR-00021655.jpg
This document is page vii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal cases with the United States as the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation (including the court and year), and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00021116.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses) applies only prospectively, not retroactively. The argument relies on the 'Landgraf' test and linguistic analysis of the words 'would' and 'shall' as future-tense indicators, citing various legal precedents.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity