Relationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Chamath Palihapitiya
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Peter Thiel
|
Board member |
5
|
1 |
EFTA00015355.pdf
This document is a media advisory from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York dated July 1, 2020. It announces a press conference to be held that day regarding charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual exploitation of minors. The advisory lists speakers including Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss and an FBI official whose name is redacted, noting that COVID-19 protocols will be in place.
EFTA00011096.pdf
This document is a legal memorandum filed on October 13, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The defense argues for individual sequestered voir dire (jury selection questioning) and permission for attorneys to conduct limited questioning of jurors, citing 'tsunami' levels of negative pretrial publicity and the inflammatory nature of the sexual abuse charges. The motion lists numerous documentaries, podcasts, and books as evidence of prejudicial media coverage that allegedly demonizes Maxwell and links her inextricably to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
EFTA00010466.pdf
This document is an internal email from the Public Affairs division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, dated July 3, 2019. It circulates a link to a PDF hosted on DocumentCloud regarding a Second Circuit Court decision to unseal files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The sender's specific identity is redacted, though their role and office are visible.
EFTA00010425.pdf
An email dated August 15, 2019, from a Public Affairs officer at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to a redacted recipient. The email, with the subject 'Found her!', shares a New York Post article reporting that Ghislaine Maxwell was spotted at an In-N-Out Burger shortly after Jeffrey Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00008628.jpg
This document is Page 90 of 167 from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 18, 2021. It contains 'Instruction No. 3', which strictly prohibits jurors from communicating about the case via any electronic means or social media (listing specific platforms like Facebook and Twitter) and bans outside research. The instruction emphasizes that deliberations must occur only within the jury room and verdicts must be based solely on evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00008548.jpg
This document is page 10 of 167 from a court filing dated December 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains Jury Instruction No. 3, which strictly prohibits jurors from using social media, the internet, or electronic devices to communicate about the case or conduct outside research during deliberations. The instruction emphasizes that the verdict must be based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00020915.jpg
This document is a court exhibit containing the 'Preliminary Instructions' for a juror questionnaire submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). It is dated March 8, 2022, and filed on March 9, 2022, specifically for 'Juror ID: 50' regarding the 'US v. Maxwell Post-verdict hearing' (Case 20cr330). The text outlines strict instructions for the juror, including the requirement for truthfulness, a ban on discussing the case, and a prohibition on conducting outside research.
DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.
DOJ-OGR-00016131.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, in which a judge is instructing the jury on their conduct. The judge strictly prohibits jurors from discussing the case with anyone, including each other, until deliberations, and forbids the use of any electronic devices or social media for communication or research related to the case. The instructions emphasize the need to keep an open mind and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.
DOJ-OGR-00021541.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, details a court's order regarding an inquiry into the truthfulness of answers provided by Juror 50. The court sets a deadline of March 1, 2022, for the parties to submit proposed questions for a hearing. The court denies the Defendant's broad subpoena requests for Juror 50's communications, social media history, and other records, labeling them a "vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition."
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.
DOJ-OGR-00009057.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details requests for evidence related to potential misconduct by "Juror No. 50." It seeks communications, social media activity, and records of payments to the juror. The document also describes how this juror and another juror, who both allegedly failed to disclose they were victims of childhood sexual abuse, discussed these experiences during deliberations, potentially influencing the verdict rendered by all 12 jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009028.jpg
This document is a court filing from February 2022 containing screenshots of an Instagram account ('thisbeartravels') belonging to Scotty David (identified as Juror No. 50). The posts reveal David publicly discussing his role as a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and mentioning his use of therapy to deal with the stress of the case. The filing notes that Juror No. 50 deleted his social media accounts (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn) shortly after these posts were discovered.
DOJ-OGR-00010247.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, in which an attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that a juror's post-trial behavior contradicts his claim of wanting privacy regarding his own sexual abuse. Everdell cites the juror's public Facebook posts about serving on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and his direct comments to victim Annie Farmer as evidence that he wanted to be known as a victim and a "champion of sexual abuse." The Court acknowledges the need to question the juror about these apparent contradictions.
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to compel the production of private communications from 'Juror 50', including emails and social media content from platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The author contends that the requests are an improper and invasive 'fishing expedition' that seeks inadmissible evidence, would harass the juror, and could inhibit future jury deliberations. The document urges the Court to reject all of the defendant's specific requests for information regarding the juror's communications, potential media payments, and social media activity.
DOJ-OGR-00009818.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes a defendant's claims that a juror, Juror 50, lied during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing argues there is insufficient evidence to prove the juror deliberately lied about not being a victim of a crime or about his social media usage. It specifically addresses the juror's failure to mention an inactive Twitter account and the claim he deleted his Facebook and Instagram accounts, suggesting these were not material or deliberate falsehoods.
DOJ-OGR-00009748.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on March 11, 2022, outlines a request for evidence related to potential misconduct by "Juror No. 50". It seeks communications, social media activity, and records of payments to the juror regarding their jury service. The document also discusses a hearing concerning the misconduct, which involves another juror who also allegedly failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, potentially implicating the entire jury's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009744.jpg
This document is page 52 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' provided false answers during voir dire regarding social media usage to hide biases and ensure selection, noting he later used Twitter to contact victim Annie Farmer and appeared in an ITV documentary. The text contrasts this behavior with Juror No. 55, whose falsehoods were exposed through follow-up questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers during voir dire, particularly concerning his use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The document contends that this pattern of dishonesty, combined with his post-trial media engagement, casts doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including those meant to screen for bias against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It also mentions a letter from the government, published by the media, which is described as an attempt to silence the juror and circumvent court rules.
DOJ-OGR-00009734.jpg
This document is legal filing (Page 42 of 66) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 demonstrated implied bias and lied during voir dire by concealing his history as a sexual abuse victim and his active use of social media (specifically Twitter) during the trial. The filing notes that the juror communicated directly with victim Annie Farmer via Twitter after the trial and framed the verdict as being 'for all the victims.'
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely *US v. Maxwell*) denying the Defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for Juror 50's communications. The Court rules that the request is a 'fishing expedition' and procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which generally prohibits private parties (like the Defendant) from subpoenaing content from providers like Facebook or Instagram; only the Government may do so with a warrant.
DOJ-OGR-00009550.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 620) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 25, 2022. The text discusses a post-trial motion regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror lied during voir dire about social media usage. The Court ruled that a hearing is warranted regarding specific questionnaire answers but denied the Defendant's request to probe the juror's social media history, citing that the juror's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps were consistent with their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014586.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, containing a judge's instructions to a jury. The judge clarifies that only witness answers and admitted exhibits constitute evidence, not lawyers' questions or the judge's own rulings. The document also contains "Instruction No. 3," which strictly prohibits jurors from communicating about the case with anyone using any electronic devices or social media platforms during their deliberations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity