Supreme Court of the United States
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-09 | N/A | Filing of forty copies and 1 unbound copy of the brief with the Supreme Court via Overnight Next ... | Sent to Supreme Court | View |
20250728111721067_24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritO...
This document is a legal reply brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Petitioner) against the United States, dated July 28, 2025. The brief argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, which promised not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators' in 'the United States,' should legally bind other districts like the Southern District of New York. The filing highlights a circuit split on whether US Attorneys can bind other districts and contends that the Second Circuit's decision allowing Maxwell's prosecution violates contract law and the plain text of the agreement.
20250714161447132_Certificate%20-%2024-1073%20-%20Maxwell...
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the Supreme Court case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States of America, dated July 14, 2025. It certifies that the Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, served the 'Brief for the United States in Opposition' to Maxwell's attorneys, Sara Kropf and David Oscar Markus. The document also includes administrative instructions regarding mail delays at the DOJ and contact information for case management.
20250714161434468_24-1073_Maxwell_Opp.pdf
This document is a legal brief filed by the United States Solicitor General in July 2025 opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The government argues that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in Florida does not bar the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, as the agreement was contractually limited to the Florida district and Maxwell was not a party to it. The brief details the history of the Epstein investigation, the terms of the NPA, and relevant legal precedents regarding the scope of plea agreements binding different US Attorney's Offices.
20250606115543471_Extension%20Letter%2024-1073%202nd.pdf
This document is a formal request dated June 6, 2025, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer to the Supreme Court Clerk regarding the case Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States (No. 24-1073). The government requests a 30-day extension (until July 14, 2025) to file their response to Maxwell's petition for a writ of certiorari, citing heavy attorney workload. The document notes that Maxwell's counsel (identified in the attached service list as Sara Kropf and David Oscar Markus) does not oppose the extension.
20250509132036202_24-1073%20Affidavit.pdf
This document is an Affidavit of Service filed in the Supreme Court case (No. 24-1073) of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. Rina Danielson certifies that on May 9, 2025, she served the 'Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner' to attorneys for both Maxwell (David Oscar Markus) and the United States (Solicitor General D. John Sauer). The service was performed via Priority Mail and email, with physical copies also sent to the Court via Federal Express.
20250507134103306_Extension%20Letter%2024-1073.pdf
This document is a letter dated May 7, 2025, from U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer to the Clerk of the Supreme Court regarding the case Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States of America (No. 24-1073). The Solicitor General requests a 30-day extension, until June 13, 2025, to file the government's response to Maxwell's petition for a writ of certiorari, citing a heavy workload. Attached is a service list identifying Sara Kropf and David Oscar Markus as counsel for the petitioner.
20250410114623513_No.%2024-_Markus%20Moss%20PLLC%20COC.pdf
This document is a Certificate of Compliance for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Petitioner) against the United States of America. The document certifies the word count of the petition (4,956 words) and is notarized by Aza Salinder Donner in the District of Columbia on April 10, 2025.
20250117162420418_AMENDED%20Application%20to%20Extend%20T...
This document is an amended application to the US Supreme Court requesting a 45-day extension for Ghislaine Maxwell to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Her new attorney, David Oscar Markus, cites his recent retention and conflicting trial schedules as reasons for the delay. The application highlights a legal question regarding a circuit split on whether plea agreements are binding on federal prosecutors across different districts.
20250115134822946_Certificate%20of%20Service.pdf
This document is a Certificate of Service filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, indicating that on January 15, 2025, Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel, David Oscar Markus, served an Application for Extension of Time to File Certiorari Petition to the Solicitor General of the United States. The document provides contact information for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel and the address of the Department of Justice.
DOJ-OGR-00000240.tif
This document is a Certificate of Service for the Supreme Court case No. 24-1073, 'Ghislaine Maxwell, Petitioner v. United States of America,' dated July 14, 2025. It certifies that the 'BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION' was served via email and first-class mail, and includes a note from the Department of Justice requesting fax or email copies of briefs due to mail delays.
DOJ-OGR-00000217.tif
This document is a letter from D. John Sauer, Solicitor General for the U.S. Department of Justice, dated June 6, 2025, to Honorable Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the Supreme Court. It requests an extension until July 14, 2025, for the government to file its response in the case 'Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073,' citing attorney unavailability due to other pressing matters, and notes that the petitioner does not oppose this extension.
DOJ-OGR-00000034.tif
This document is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States by Ghislaine Maxwell, also identified as SEALED DEFENDANT 1, against the United States of America. Dated April 10, 2025, it seeks review of a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with David Oscar Markus of MARKUS/Moss PLLC serving as counsel for Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00000033.tif
This document is a Certificate of Compliance for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court of the United States by Ghislaine Maxwell (AKA Sealed Defendant 1) against the United States of America. It certifies that the document contains 4,956 words, as required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), and was sworn to and subscribed by Notary Public Aza Salinder Donner on April 10, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00000937.jpg
This page is an excerpt from a legal filing dated April 1, 2021, arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail. The defense contends that wealthy male defendants with foreign ties (listing specific examples like Madoff and Weinstein) were granted bail to prepare for trial, and Maxwell deserves the same treatment. It cites legal precedents stating that pretrial detention is an 'extraordinary remedy' reserved for limited cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000773.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing in the case regarding Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490), dated August 5, 2025. It argues for strict adherence to grand jury secrecy rules (Rule 6(e)) to protect the privacy of victims, many of whom were minors at the time of abuse. The filing outlines specific requested relief, including requiring the government to confer with victims' counsel, conducting judicial in camera reviews of materials, and allowing victims' counsel to review proposed redactions prior to any public release to prevent re-identification.
DOJ-OGR-00000215.jpg
This is an Affidavit of Service filed in the Supreme Court of the United States for case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. On May 9, 2025, Rina Danielson served a 'Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner' upon the attorneys for both parties (David Oscar Markus and Solicitor General D. John Sauer) via mail. The document is stamped with DOJ bates number DOJ-OGR-00000215.
DOJ-OGR-00000214.jpg
A Certificate of Compliance filed in the Supreme Court case No. 24-1073, Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. Rina Danielson certifies that the associated filing contains 3,097 words, executed and notarized on May 9, 2025. The document bears a Department of Justice footer.
DOJ-OGR-00021071.jpg
This document is page 24 of an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) arguing two main points: first, that the statute of limitations had expired for the offenses charged because the 2003 amendment to §3283 cannot be applied retroactively to offenses committed before its enactment. Second, it argues for a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically that a juror lied on a questionnaire to conceal his own history as a victim of child sexual abuse, which the defense argues established bias.
DOJ-OGR-00002323.jpg
This document is page 3 (Table of Authorities) of a legal filing (Document 126) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It lists legal precedents (cases) and statutes cited in the brief, including Supreme Court cases like Duren v. Missouri and Second Circuit cases like United States v. Jackman. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002323.
DOJ-OGR-00002323(1).jpg
This document is page 'ii' (labeled Page 3 of 13 in the PDF) of a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (Cases) and Statutes cited elsewhere in the filing. The citations heavily reference cases involving jury selection and fair representation (e.g., Duren v. Missouri, Taylor v. Louisiana), suggesting the main document likely involves a motion regarding jury composition or selection.
DOJ-OGR-00021907.jpg
This is a formal letter from the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, dated April 14, 2025, to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The letter confirms the filing and docketing of a petition for a writ of certiorari for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. It specifies the petition was filed on April 10, 2025, and assigned the Supreme Court docket number 24-1073 on April 14, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00021904.jpg
This is a formal notification letter dated January 21, 2025, from the Supreme Court of the United States to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. The letter confirms that Justice Sotomayor has granted Maxwell's application for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, setting the new deadline to April 10, 2025. The document includes filing stamps indicating it was processed by the Court of Appeals on January 27, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00021771.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023. It argues that 'Juror 50' should have been excluded from the Maxwell case due to implied bias, specifically citing the 'average person test' and the juror's failure to disclose victimization during voir dire. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Smith v. Phillips, U.S. v. Burr) to support the claim that nondisclosure of sexual abuse victimization deprives the court of vital information.
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on June 29, 2023. It argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the statute of limitations under the PROTECT Act. The text asserts that Congress rejected a specific retroactivity clause not to limit the Act's scope entirely, but to avoid unconstitutional results (reviving time-barred crimes), while still intending to cover past conduct where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00019595.jpg
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 28, 2020, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-3061). The text argues that a district court's refusal to modify a protective order is immediately appealable under the 'collateral order doctrine.' The filing contends that the appeal is necessary to share 'critical new information' with Judge Preska before deposition materials in the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* are unsealed, arguing that post-judgment review would be moot.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity