Counsel
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge (implied speaker)
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The jury
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (presumably the judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Speaker (Judge)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Designating Party
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The President
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Attorney General
|
Administrative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MDC warden
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Peters and Peters
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Legal visits characterized by uncomfortable conditions, lack of privacy, and surveillance | MDC Legal Visiting Rooms | 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 | Jury Charge / Instructions phase of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Scheduled oral argument in both cases. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Side bar conferences | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Government Exhibit 10 is admitted into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential firing of the Special Counsel or Attorney General by the President. | Washington D.C. (Implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation Scheduling Discussion | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberation/Recess | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Hearing | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Protracted discussion regarding a jury note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Evidentiary Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Guards setting up a tripod/camera focused on Maxwell during legal conferences. | MDC | View |
| N/A | N/A | Closing arguments in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Counsel Meeting | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal conferences where Maxwell is separated by a cloudy plastic shield, cannot handle documents,... | MDC Visiting Room | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial in which the jury is being instructed on how to evaluate witness testimony. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Court and the Defendant's counsel discussed a note received from the deliberating jury. | Court | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A daily meeting scheduled for 8:30 a.m. beginning 'tomorrow' to prepare for voir dire. | courtroom, 518 | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court is in session to discuss a note from the jury regarding their deliberation schedule aro... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001587.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense argues that she is not a danger to the community, cites the health risks of COVID-19 in prison, and claims she is not a flight risk due to her strong ties to the U.S. (citizenship, 30-year residency, family in NY) and her history of cooperation through counsel since Epstein's arrest.
DOJ-OGR-00001148.jpg
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Document 100) from case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 28, 2020. It details the procedural history following the defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, specifically focusing on the July 14, 2020 bail hearing where the defense argued for release based on family ties, offers of private security, and cooperation with the government following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest. The text includes transcripts of defense counsel offering to provide further financial verification and suretor information to satisfy the court's concerns regarding flight risk and financial transparency.
DOJ-OGR-00001083.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (page 79 of the proceeding, page 142 of the filing) dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-770 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense attorney concludes arguments for release on strict bail conditions, asserting the government failed to carry its burden. The Court then begins to deliver a ruling, outlining the legal standards for detention versus bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, and stating that high-profile status or wealth should not influence the application of the law.
DOJ-OGR-00001060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 21-770, dated April 1, 2021) where a defense attorney argues against the government's claim that the defendant is a flight risk for changing her contact information. The attorney explains that the defendant changed her email and phone number because she was hacked and received 'strange e-mails' after the Second Circuit unsealed civil case documents—revealing her personal data—around the time of Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in August 2019. The attorney asserts she kept the hacked phone to preserve evidence for ongoing civil litigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000974.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is not a flight risk, citing prior court decisions where defendants who knew of impending charges did not flee. It emphasizes that the government had no evidence of Ms. Maxwell planning to leave the country and arrested her without warning before a holiday. The document further contends that Ms. Maxwell's actions to avoid public scrutiny after Epstein's arrest do not indicate an intent to flee.
DOJ-OGR-00000650.jpg
This document is a court transcript from September 3, 2019, in which a representative for the government addresses the court regarding the victims in the case. The speaker confirms that efforts were made to notify all known victims of the proceeding, in compliance with the Crimes Victims' Rights Act, and notes that both the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have been in contact with them. The government also commits to continuing to provide services to the victims even if the indictment is dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00000554.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. An unidentified speaker, likely an attorney, explains the complexities of a client's sex offender registration obligations under the federal SORNA statute due to having multiple residences in states like Florida and New Mexico. The speaker notes that while efforts were made to comply, authorities in New Mexico ultimately determined that registration was not required, and the court acknowledges understanding the situation.
DOJ-OGR-00021014.jpg
This legal document details a dispute between the Defendant and the Court regarding how to respond to a deliberating jury's note. The Defendant's initial proposed responses were deemed erroneous, and she later conceded a point about a return flight's potential connection to illegal sexual activity. The document outlines the Defendant's attempts to influence the jury's understanding through specific instructions and supplemental proposals.
DOJ-OGR-00020938.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, identified as being completed by Juror 50. The document was filed on March 9, 2022. In response to the final question, the juror indicated that they do not wish for any of their answers to be kept confidential from the Judge, counsel, or the Defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00002398.jpg
This document is a page from a legal order, likely a protective order, filed on March 4, 2021. It outlines the procedures for handling confidential information during the discovery phase of a legal case, including the process for objecting to confidentiality designations, resolving disputes through the Court, and the final disposition of such materials by return or destruction upon the case's conclusion. It also specifies how non-parties can designate materials as 'CONFIDENTIAL' or 'HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY'.
DOJ-OGR-00002387.jpg
This page is part of a legal document, likely a protective order, filed on March 4, 2016. It outlines the specific procedures for designating discovery materials and deposition testimony as 'CONFIDENTIAL' or 'CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION', including the requirement for attorney review and the basis for such a designation to prevent privacy harm.
DOJ-OGR-00002374.jpg
This document is page 3 (or 4) of a Protective Order filed in Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It outlines the legal procedures for handling 'CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION,' specifically requiring counsel to obtain written acknowledgments from third parties before disclosure and establishing that designating documents as confidential asserts a good faith basis regarding privacy harm.
DOJ-OGR-00002374(1).jpg
This document is page 3 (or 4 depending on the filing version) of a Protective Order from the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS). It outlines the protocols for handling 'CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION,' specifically requiring counsel to obtain written acknowledgments from third parties before disclosure and defining the legal representations made when marking a document as confidential. The page bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00002374).
DOJ-OGR-00002167.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 18, 2020, summarizes the defense's arguments from a bail hearing held on July 14, 2020. The defense urged the court to release the defendant, who was arrested by the FBI on July 2, 2020, citing family ties in the U.S. and offering to hire private security. The defense also addressed the government's concerns about the defendant's finances and willingness to provide more information to secure a bail bond.
DOJ-OGR-00002153.jpg
This document is page 2 of an affidavit proposed by Ghislaine Maxwell in December 2020 as part of a bail application (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). In the document, Maxwell acknowledges her French citizenship but voluntarily and irrevocably waives her right to contest extradition from France to the United States should she be released on bail and subsequently flee. She explicitly consents to extradition under the USA/EU Agreement on Extradition to assure the court she will not use French citizenship to evade US justice.
DOJ-OGR-00001956.jpg
This document is page 79 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2020. It captures the conclusion of the defense counsel's argument requesting strict bail conditions rather than detention, followed immediately by the Judge beginning to deliver their ruling. The Judge outlines the legal standards for detention, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and stating that detention is based on risk of flight or danger to the community.
DOJ-OGR-00022034.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on April 9, 2020, in a criminal case on behalf of Defendant Thomas. The defense requests the court to compel the prosecution to turn over various documents and reports, arguing they contain exculpatory evidence under Rule 16 and Brady-Giglio. The motion claims the defendant's alleged criminal conduct was a result of widespread practices and policies within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and that the government has unfairly refused to disclose this relevant information.
DOJ-OGR-00021946.jpg
This document outlines the additional conditions of release for a defendant in Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT (filed Nov 19, 2019). Conditions include a $100,000 bond co-signed by two people, travel restrictions limited to NY/NJ/PA districts, surrender of travel documents, pretrial supervision (PTS), mental health evaluation, and a strict prohibition on contacting the co-defendant without counsel present. The defendant was to be released on their own signature with remaining conditions to be met by Nov 26, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021938.jpg
This document is Page 7 of a court filing (Document 8) from Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on November 19, 2019. It outlines the additional conditions of release for a defendant, including a $100,000 personal recognizance bond co-signed by two people, travel restrictions limited to NY and NJ districts, surrender of travel documents, and a prohibition on possessing weapons or contacting a co-defendant without counsel. The defendant was to be released on their own signature with remaining conditions to be met by November 26, 2019.
DOJ-OGR-00021787.jpg
This document is a legal notice (NOTICE TO THE BAR) from Case 22-1426, dated 02/29/2024, outlining procedures for obtaining audio recordings of oral arguments and arranging court reporters or interpreter services. It details how to purchase argument CDs for $34 and the requirements for providing written notice and consent for court reporters or interpreter services at least one week prior to a hearing or oral argument. The document serves to inform legal professionals about these administrative processes within the court system.
DOJ-OGR-00019561.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 2, 2020, details a procedural history where the U.S. Government, in February 2019, successfully modified a civil protective order in one court (Court-1) to obtain materials for a criminal grand jury investigation. The defendant in the criminal case later learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the defendant to provide information under seal to the relevant courts (Court-1 and Court-2) so they can make their own determinations about the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019506.jpg
This document is a page from a Protective Order in a criminal case (Case 20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on July 27, 2020. It outlines strict rules for handling discovery materials, specifying that they can only be used by authorized individuals (such as the defense team and potential witnesses) for the sole purpose of preparing for the trial. The order explicitly prohibits all parties from posting any discovery information on the Internet and requires encryption for materials shared via non-electronic mail methods.
DOJ-OGR-00019443.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from March 2, 2020, outlines a procedural history involving civil protective orders in a criminal case. In 2019, the Government successfully modified a protective order in one court (Court-1) to obtain materials from a 'Recipient' for a grand jury, while another court (Court-2) denied a similar request. The current court is now permitting the Defendant, who learned of this through discovery, to provide this sealed information to Court-1 and Court-2 so those courts can determine whether to unseal related materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019331.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a procedural history concerning sealed information from civil matters. The Government successfully modified a protective order in one court (Court-1) but not another (Court-2) to obtain materials for a grand jury investigation, which were then turned over by a 'Recipient'. The current court is now permitting the Defendant, who learned of this through discovery, to provide the sealed information back to Court-1 and Court-2 for their own determination of relevance.
DOJ-OGR-00019261.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details a procedural history where the Government obtained materials protected by civil orders after receiving permission from one court (Court-1) but not another (Court-2). The Defendant in a related criminal case learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the Defendant to provide this information under seal to the relevant courts to resolve the conflict.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Plaintiffs | Counsel | $0.00 | Obligation to pay counsel a reasonable fee for ... | View |
| 0001-07-01 | Received | Attorney General ... | Counsel | $0.00 | Hypothetical refusal of the Special Counsel's b... | View |
Court Reporter Attendance
Notice including name, address, and telephone number of attending reporter.
In-person legal conference
Four-hour legal conference marked by restrictions on water, earbuds, and privacy.
Pretrial motions
Request for a legal call to confer with counsel regarding pretrial motions was denied.
Defense Preparation
Reference to Maxwell's need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for defense.
Juror Lists
Joint submission of four lists regarding which jurors should proceed or be excused.
Interpreter Services
Request for sign interpreters or hearing aids.
CorrLinks Correspondence
Emails deleted by MDC prior to the 180-day retention period.
Civil Litigation
Legal materials and correspondence on the hacked phone.
Legal Defense
Meetings behind closed doors, visible but not audible to staff.
Legal consultation
Guards are described as feverishly writing while observing Ms. Maxwell during videoconferencing with her counsel.
Legal Defense
Facilitated on-going communication.
Legal calls
The defendant is permitted to make legal calls for up to three hours per day in a private room.
Restrictions on Ms. Maxwell's confinement
Counsel attempted to address the restrictive conditions of Ms. Maxwell's confinement through numerous communications, but to no avail.
Defendant's conditions of confinement
The Court received regular updates regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement based on regular communications between the Government and Bureau of Prisons legal counsel.
Legal calls
The defendant is permitted to make legal calls for up to three hours per day in a private room.
jury note
The Court discussed the jury's note with counsel.
Legal Defense
Videoconferencing with counsel, observed by guards writing notes.
Exhibit 52 issue
Briefing received by the court at 9:45.
Disclosure
The Court refers to an email between counsel which appears to contain a disclosure, which is a point of discussion in the hearing.
Defense Preparation
Document claims conditions impair ability to communicate effectively with counsel.
Registration status
The court speculates that counsel would have filed an application or a letter to an administrative agency to get a response regarding the individual's registration requirements.
Legal Defense
5 hours daily / 25 hours weekly of privileged attorney-client communication.
Video conference access information
Chambers will email counsel with information on how to access the video conference for the July 14, 2020 proceeding.
Investigation Documents
Sent more than 1.1 million documents merely as attachments with minimal records.
Video conference
Monitor repositioned further away, impacting document review.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity